English football "supporters"

I've tried to drop this but I'm incensed at some of the comments I've read. I tried to send the main protagonists a message - but it was too long, so I'll print it here:

A post from a well respected red re. Hillsborough PART 1

"Why do so many people think that Liverpool fans were to blame for Hillsborough?

Firstly it is important to remember that the year before the Hillsborough disaster, Liverpool met Nottingham Forest in the same ground, and in the same round of the same competition. In both years Liverpool fans were given the smaller Leppings Lane end of the ground, despite having the larger fan base. In 1988, nobody died and nobody was seriously hurt, although there were reports of overcrowding.

Chief Superintendent Duckenfield was the most senior policeman at Hillsborough on the 15th April 1989, the year of the disaster. He had virtually no experience of policing a big match, and was only drafted in a week or so before the match. This was because the police officer that had policed the game the year before, had been suspended after an initiation prank on a new P.C. ended with the new recruit being too traumatised to work.

When a police force undertake an operation such as policing a football match, a detailed report is made that describes in minute detail what was done; by whom; at what time and how. This is called an operational order, and policing the match in 1989 should not have been too difficult to police for Duckenfield, as he has a complete, successfully carried out operational order from the year before. Crucially though, the Inspector decided to make changes to this operational order, and this, among other things led to the disaster.

His first mistake was that despite his limited experience, he decided that he would go against the wisdom of the officer from the year before and decided that there was no need to have police officers posted at varying distances away from the ground. In 1988, police officers were posted at varying distances to check tickets, give directions, and in the event that too many fans arrived at a certain time, they could stem the flow towards the antiquated turnstiles and relieve the pressure. Without these officers, fans were left to head for the ground unchecked, and after bad motorway traffic, many fans arrived at the Leppings Lane end of the ground between 2pm and 2.30pm, and the turnstiles could not admit people quick enough.

In the absence of the outer placed police officers, fans started to congregate around the turnstiles, but they were not able to admit people quick enough and a dangerous crush started to build outside the ground. After being asked several times over the radio by Murray, the most senior policeman outside the ground, Duckenfield next gave the order to open gate C.

Gate C is an exit gate, and as such is designed to let thousands of people leave the ground quickly, but used in reverse it was lethal. Even at this stage, by following the previous year’s operation order, Duckenfield could have averted the disaster. In 1988, there were police officers posted at the entrance of each of the central pens (3+4) and once these pens were full, people we re-directed to the pens on the wings. In 1989, no direction was given. Fans were left to go down a tunnel that led them to the central pens, and once they were there the weight of fans from behind meant that they couldn’t go back.

From his position in the police control box, Duckenfield could see the disaster unfolding. As a part of the subsequent investigation, people visited the police control box and testified that you could “see the colour of people’s eyes” such was the power of the zoom facility on the CCTV. So if this was the case, it was obviously possible to see people vomiting and turning blue as they were crushed against the perimeter fencing. Duckenfield would later testify that once he realised what he had caused he “froze” This version of events is the real truth of the Hillsborough, and why many officers on duty that day wrote in their report that there was no direction from the control box. Duckenfield had basically realised his mistakes, and presumably feared the consequences for him personally.

His mind no doubt racing, he started to think of a way out for him and so when the referee stopped the game at 3.06pm and went to the police control box for information, instead of admitting his fatal errors and short comings, he lied. He told the referee and anyone else who would listen, that drunken Liverpool fans had turned up late and broken down gate C. A picture of mindless, drunk, ticket less yobs was painted in Duckenfield’s attempt to shift the blame. Later in court, he admitted that he had lied. By then, it was too late and the damage had been done.

PART 2

While Liverpool mourned its dead, Duckenfield’s lies had gathered a pace, and his self-preserving story was spun to the nation’s media. The following Tuesday or Wednesday, several newspapers ran the story that Duckenfield had fabricated, the worst offender by some distance was the Sun. Under the editorship of Kelvin MacKenzie. He ran a headline shouting “The Truth” and three bullet pointed sub headlines that read “Some fans pick-pocketed victims” “Some fans urinated on brave cops” “some fans beat up PC giving kiss of life”

Day’s after losing their loved ones, they had to read this evil **** about them.

All of these headlines were later proven to be lies. I’ll say that again ALL OF THESE HEADLINES WERE LATER PROVED TO BE LIES but in a nation that is told what to think by the media, Liverpool fans had been painted as the villains of the piece. Even as MacKenzie laid out his front page, a senior ex-colleague could see what was happening and later described the story as “wrong” and “a classic smear” but complained that by this time “MacKenzie’s power was so complete that the only person capable of reining him in was Murdoch”

I ask anyone now to try and put yourself in the position of a parent, who sent their son or daughter off to watch a football match never to return. Just a few days later, while the pain is still overwhelming and all encompassing, you read that it was their fault. You have to read vile, vicious lies about your dead baby. How would you feel? That people are still walking around blaming your son and his fellow supporters for a disaster that was caused by “a complete breakdown in police control” according to the Taylor report would surely make you angry?

That is why I can never move on and let this go, because the truth needs to be told.

As I mentioned, other papers ran similar stories, but none so graphically and viciously as the Sun. To their credit, the other newspapers quickly apologised and withdrew their stores once they realised that they had been spun a pack of lies. The Sun made no such apology, and the arrogant MacKenzie is still telling all who will listen that he was right then, and he is right now.

Personally, I can’t really blame the newspapers for running the story in the first pace. I can most definitely blame them for the vicious way in which they set about Liverpool and its supporters, but I used to think that if a senior police officer tells you a story you have to believe it. I mean if you can’t trust the police, then who can you trust?

The Sun did the most damage. It was than and is still now the biggest selling tabloid newspaper and it told people a pack of lies. For many people though, the headline is king and that awful story would be their truth; despite the facts. Still today I meet people who believe that to be the truth, because that’s all they read at the time. The Sun was immediately boycotted by Liverpool fans and still is to this day.
Nobody other than those that feel affected would follow the subsequent Taylor Enquiry, and the court cases as the real truth unfolds. They saw a headline and read a story, and that is now their truth. Yes, the Sun eventually made a half-arsed apology but far, far too late to mean anything other than “please stop the boycott, and buy our paper again because we miss your cash”

Police officers on duty that day were asked to submit their recollections of that day. Many of them noted that there was little or no contact from police control. The most damning reports were taken back to their author’s, and the officers were asked to amend them because it “didn’t look very good” if a police officer criticised the police. “it doesn’t look very good” because it wasn’t very ****ing good, and the police were blatantly just covering their arses. A cover up was planned, and the blame was shifted in one of the worst miscarriages of justice I have even known. The guilt walk free and the innocent are vilified. It’s still makes me angry and sick to the stomach to this day.

PART 3

Did you know that after SYP defended Duckenfield through private prosecution after private prosecution, that they charged him internally for his mismanagement of the Hillsborough disaster, and he even wormed his way out of that one by retiring sick. So even the South Yorkshire Police knew he was guilty, but didn’t want the public to know. Doesn’t look good on the force if people find out we cocked up big style and 96 ended up dead. Much better if we used the old football hooligan card, and make the Liverpool fans out to be the guilty party.

Duckenfield actually admitted to a court that he lied. He admitted that Liverpool fans were not to blame for Hillsborough and that he “froze” and he “lied” – his words, not mine.

Sadly, the headlines had long since run though and the damage was already done.

For those that live from headline to headline, and can’t be bothered to look a little deeper I guess we’ll always be to blame in their eyes. For those that are willing to look a little closer, you will see that Liverpool were victims that day, not perpetrators.
The cover up by South Yorkshire Police appeared to start before the match that day had even been halted. In later testimony, as I have already mentioned in the first article, Chief Superintendent Duckenfield said that while he watched the disaster unfold that he “froze”. While ordinary fans were pulling the injured and the dying from the crowd, and doing everything in their powers to save lives, the most senior police officer at the match “froze”

Of course when Graham Kelly and the referee came to the police box after the match was stopped to find out what was happening, Duckenfield didn’t say that he “froze”.

Only the man himself will know what went through his head in those moments before Graham Kelly arrived at the police control box, but it would seem fair to assume that he was already trying to shift the burden of guilt from his head, to that of the Liverpool supporters who were still dying in front of his very eyes.

Duckenfield told Graham Kelly and the referee “a disgraceful lie” as Lord Justice Taylor would later call it. Duckenfield said that Liverpool supporters had broken down gate C, and stormed the Leppings Lane terrace. As you will know, Duckenfield gave the order to open that gate, but the cover-up was underway. This is a pivotal moment in the entire story of Hillsborough, because that lie eventually found it’s way to the media. That lie told in front of dying Liverpool fans is the reason that you still meet people today that think we were to blame for Hillsborough. It’s impossible for me to convey how much hate I feel towards this man, other than to say for me he is worse than Mackenzie – and that is saying a lot.

A little later that day, the cover-up would appear to be in full swing. Families were brought to the gymnasium at Hillsborough to identify their loved ones. Polaroid pictures of the deceased were pinned on a board, and the bodies laid out in the make-shift mortuary. Families were first asked to see if they could spot their missing relative from their picture, and then if they made an identification, by coming to the gymnasium to identify the body. The bereaved spoke of the cold and heartless way in which they were treated by the South Yorkshire Police at this time, and how one mother sobbed as she realised her worst fears while standing over her dead son, only to be dragged away from the body with the words of an officer “no you can’t kiss him, he’s ours now” ringing in her ears. The police obviously had no time for compassion or humanity as they had their arses to save,

Parents were unbelievably dragged straight from their dead loved ones side, into an interview. This interview saw the police asking the same question time and time again. “How much did he have to drink?” One mother who had just seen her 14 year olds body was also asked this very question. “He’s 14 for Christ’s sakes, he didn’t have anything to drink” she replied incredulously and the reply, from memory, was something along the lines of “Come on love, I bet he’d had a fair bit, hadn’t he?”

It soon became clear that the police were trying to paint a picture of drunken fans causing the disaster, despite the evidence not supporting the story, in order to hide their culpability. By interviewing families in a state of grief and shock, they clearly hoped to get the statement’s that would support their lies.

PART 4

Within days of the disaster, Lord Justice Taylor was appointed to conduct a judicial enquiry. West Midlands Police were commissioned to help the Lord conduct his investigations, which lasted for around six weeks. Lord Justice Taylor considered the statements of 3,776 witnesses, 1,550 letters, 71 hours of video evidence and hundreds of photographs. When I say he studied 71 hours of video, that is of course not including two CCTV video tapes that were mysteriously "stolen" from the police control box on the night of the disaster, if you believe in fairy tales that is.

Some of the witness statements were from officers on duty that day. These officers had been asked to write down their recollections, feelings, and observations on their note pads. These statements were then taken to the solicitor’s who were acting on behalf of South Yorkshire Police, and the solicitor’s advised that many of them should be changed as they were "not suitable" in their current state.

Here are a few examples of the changes made to officer’s statements in an apparent bid to deflect criticism.

Police Constable William Holmes, made on April 27, 1989, ended with the sentence, "However, there seemed to be a total lack of contact with police control or at least a senior officer who could have informed us as to what action was required." The sentence was deleted.

PC Desmond Brophy, had a number of sentences deleted from his original account of the disaster, including the line: "My single most strongest observation that I would make was that for a significant period of time there appeared to be a lack of radio guidance from control."

PC Kevin Bennett's criticisms of the way the police herded supporters into an already dangerously overcrowded stand were also deleted. His original recollection was, "I felt that officers should have been at the turnstile entrance in more strength and caused the crowd to form queues PRIOR to getting near to the turnstiles. No senior officers at this stage appeared to be in command of the situation."

Inspector John Beresford had originally written: "The [police] radio was faint and totally incoherent. No instructions were forthcoming." This sentence was changed in his amended statement to read: "The radio was faint amidst the noise in the ground."

PC Peter Bradley's statement included both deletions and amendments. His view that "no officer, senior or otherwise, came to inform us of what had happened" was removed. His statement, "Radio traffic was non-existent all through this time, as was a lack of direction from supervisory officers" later became, "Radio messages being passed were more difficult to understand all through this time."

As you can see, the cover-up and deflection of the blame was at full speed, and while the media were being manipulated to make sure the country were told about the drunken, ticket less yobs then the South Yorkshire Police felt that they would be off the hook.

All of the above is accepted and factual. I have not made anything up or embellished anything as far as I am aware, this is the truth – and not Mackenzie’s brand of it either.

The fight for justice goes on.

YNWA.

Originally posted by Ragnorak
I wonder why CFT was the first person to read my post that way, and respond in the way he did?

Legacy from a previous time I embarrassed him is my guess. It's a pity that a grudge still sours him and thwarts his responses to posts.

Hey Tim, what time is it? 😀

The fact remains that I've never seen any other supporter boo the announcement that t on Irish history and refer to the Irish as British. Again, whatever pleases you.

D

It's not hard to understand why. He's an Englishman living in Ireland, so I'm sure he has had his share of my country is better than yours. I don't think he should have responded in kind, but what I don't understand is why you take the moral high-ground.

I don't piss on Irish history, I just piss you off. It's the button you wear on your sleeve. For example, I've lost track of the number of times people in the PFC called me a Mexican or Spanish as a joke. Do you really think that offends Portuguese history? Or Mexican and Spanish for that matter? Portuguese history is miles above comments like that.

And, for the record, so is Irish history. The sad thing is that I have to spell this out for you.

Originally posted by Ragnorak
So, unfortunately, your interpretation is way off base.

D

I was talking about your response to catfoodtim, dolt.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

You do realise that questions usually end in a question mark, don't you?

What you did in your first post in this thread was make abusive statement after abusive statement. There was no question posed in your first post.

The sentences ending in a question mark in your second post were
1: "Scoffing at amateur sports?"
2: "Are you proud of your 'amateur' sports or ashamed of them? Either way, you do it with your English Premier League replica shirt on. "
3: "You are against xenophobia and elitism ?"

1 and 3 I treated as rhetorical, purely posed so you could give a reply.

2 was a completely random question, based on nothing I had said. I treated that question as another invention, so you could flame me with a "witticism" (as quoted above).

Your 3rd post also contained no questions.

If you'd like to reread my OP, and then frame some genuine questions, I'd be delighted to answer them. I've also posed numerous questions to your good self, which you have also sidestepped,I count 5 questions in my first direct post to you, and 2 (+1 rhetorical) in the second post.

The number 1 question I'd like to ask you, is why you think booing the announcement that there are 4 minutes left in which to score an equaliser is the sign of a true fan, seeing as this type of behaviour is what my OP and hence the thread is ridiculing? You disagree. I'd just like to know why?

D

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I was talking about your response to catfoodtim, dolt.

In flyers for Sinatra at the London Palladium in 2006, The Observer was quoted as saying "Energy, razzmatazz and technical wizardry".

The full quote was "For all the energy, razzmatazz and technical wizardry, the audience had been short-changed"

EU laws have now forbidden taking quotes out of context in order to hoodwink consumers.

D

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
"You're a foreigner so you're not entitled to comment." That's the message I get from your hypersensitive response.

I don't understand your interpretation.

How would you respond in a serious manner if I told you that South African sports fans could never feel the passion of an English fan.

How would you respond if I told you that the only way for a South African fan to increase their ability to feel passion was by reading English newspapers and watching English television.

How would you respond if in a post I told you that you were wearing a KKK gown?

Sorry, but those types of comments are too ridiculous to respond seriously to, and those types of comments are all CFT has added to the thread.

They're almost as ridiculous as a stadium full of English football "supporters" booing the announcement that their team have 4 minutes in which to score an equaliser.

D

Originally posted by Ragnorak
I don't understand your interpretation.
D

Too bad.

An interesting thread. And most threads on here move along so slowly that most lose interest.

There is certainly no justification for the Sun´s piecé. Even if there had been one person who hit a copper or pickpocketed a victim, what was the point in front-paging such a vile and vindictive piece.

The Sun have always been scummers, perhaps not as much as the Mail.

I accept Angry´s comments. I like tha fact that he agrees that a small number of fans contributed to the incident. I agree that despite this, proper police controls should still have been in place, and then the attempted cover up was a great public disservice.

Blademan and I, were reacting more to the point about Liverpool fans assigned ALL the blame to the police, playing the 100% innocent victims in this. It is as though the City likes to be seen as the struggling victims of the UK, in stories like this and others. It is as though it adds to some kind of myth about Liverpool. It´s a bit maudling.

Let it go. You will never get an apology from those scummer at the Sun. How many people in Liverpool subscribe to Sky. How many piled into pubs to watch the game against the Mancs. Both Sky and the Sun are owned by the same parasitical excuse for a human being.

Originally posted by Hopster
An interesting thread. And most threads on here move along so slowly that most lose interest.

There is certainly no justification for the Sun´s piecé. Even if there had been one person who hit a copper or pickpocketed a victim, what was the point in front-paging such a vile and vindictive piece.

The Sun have always been scummers, perhaps not as much a ...[text shortened]... inst the Mancs. Both Sky and the Sun are owned by the same parasitical excuse for a human being.

So Hopster do you think if you were one of those familys who lost somebody on that day do you think you would just be able to "let it go"? Im not going put you in any kind of bracket because i am not going pretend i know you in any way, but crystal palace hardly have an unblemished record when it comes to their fans. Put yourselves in the their position, it could have so easily been any of us.

People go to football matches and drink, not everybody but a vast majority. People turn up to big matches without match tickets and try and gain entry to the ground. This went on before the 15th of April 1989 and it still goes on in 2008. Look at the mass exodus of England fans to Germany at the last world cup. These supporters traveled with no tickets, probably drank their weight in alcohol while they were over there, and a good few would have tried to gain access to the matches without an offical ticket. Does that mean that if by some tragic turn of events 96 of them were to be crushed to death that they would be responsible in some way? I dont remember 96 of their parents having to go and identify their dead children and we all know the reason why this didnt happen.

Spurs73 for somebody to come on this forum and start slinging wild accusations around about such a tragic event based on what the have read in the scum, especially as they plainly have never done any real research into what caused those events to unfold, is distressing considering the outcome of what happened that day.

Blademan63 For some F***ing moron to come on here and use such a tragic event as his way of insulting a fellow forum user is in my opinion the lowest of the low. You asked me to reflect for a while and come back at you without insults. Unfortunatly that is all you deserve for such moronic posts.

Originally posted by sally cinnamon
People go to football matches and drink, not everybody but a vast majority. People turn up to big matches without match tickets and try and gain entry to the ground. This went on before the 15th of April 1989 and it still goes on in 2008. Look at the mass exodus of England fans to Germany at the last world cup. These supporters traveled with no ticket ...[text shortened]... f events 96 of them were to be crushed to death that they would be responsible in some way?[/i]

Anybody who tries to rush gates, or gained entry without tickets to an event in which overcrowding caused deaths WOULD have to bear some responsibility. Just because the practise is perceived to be widespread doesn't take away from that fact.

Poor security which allows people without tickets into a venue would also have to bear responsibility.

D

Originally posted by Ragnorak
Anybody who tries to rush gates, or gained entry without tickets to an event in which overcrowding caused deaths WOULD have to bear some responsibility. Just because the practise is perceived to be widespread doesn't take away from that fact.

Poor security which allows people without tickets into a venue would also have to bear responsibility.

D

I noticed that the English footbal hooligans were particularly well behaved during the recent European Championships.

perhaps we should look more closely at the circumstances that led to this good behavior and duplicate it for future matches.