hillsborough disaster

Mancie · 10-09-2012, 23:14

I watched a docu on this and it brings up the same questions..is anyone to blame?.. Thatcher, the Police, the supporters?... Thatcher had insisted on high fences at football grounds in the mid 80's.. the police did treat most supporters as animals.. the supporters turned up in the thousands some without tickets.
At the time Thatchers press and the police she controled nailed the blame onto the supporters claiming most of them were drunken louts which topped out to be untrue...to my mind that makes Thatcher and her ilk killers.. expect the usual stuff about Iraq but this is a direct killing of 98 people on home ground!

Wynonie Harris · 10-09-2012, 23:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mancie

to my mind that makes Thatcher and her ilk killers.. expect the usual stuff about Iraq but this is a direct killing of 98 people on home ground!

So how is that any more morally reprehensible than lying to the country to take us into an unwanted and unnecessary war resulting in the death of over a hundred British service personnel? Why is that not "direct" and is it any more excusable because they died on foreign soil rather than a "home ground"?

Mancie · 11-09-2012, 02:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris

So how is that any more morally reprehensible than lying to the country to take us into an unwanted and unnecessary war resulting in the death of over a hundred British service personnel? Why is that not "direct" and is it any more excusable because they died on foreign soil rather than a "home ground"?

Take it as you see it mate..I did mention Iraq because I had the inkling it may be brought up.. two wrongs don't make it right and for the time being I'm talking about the near on manslaughter of 98 people at a football match..some of them very young.. a football game.. not a war..

jaysay · 11-09-2012, 08:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris

So how is that any more morally reprehensible than lying to the country to take us into an unwanted and unnecessary war resulting in the death of over a hundred British service personnel? Why is that not "direct" and is it any more excusable because they died on foreign soil rather than a "home ground"?

Looks like the Special Brew took hold of Mancie early tonight Wyn

Wynonie Harris · 11-09-2012, 09:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mancie

Take it as you see it mate..I did mention Iraq because I had the inkling it may be brought up.. two wrongs don't make it right and for the time being I'm talking about the near on manslaughter of 98 people at a football match..some of them very young.. a football game.. not a war..

...a war that was completely unnecessary. The Thatcher government's move to have fences installed at major football grounds was stupid and ill-judged but even they couldn't have forseen Hillsborough. Blair knew perfectly well that launching a war would result in the deaths of British servicemen and many Iraqis but he still went ahead, because he wanted to further his status as a world statesman.

Mancie, lad, I think you're on a non-starter accusing Thatcher of "killing" Liverpool fans (despite her many other sins) and I think you're doing it to divert attention from the fact that that the party you support harbours a potential war criminal.

jaysay · 11-09-2012, 09:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris

...a war that was completely unnecessary. The Thatcher government's move to have fences installed at major football grounds was stupid and ill-judged but even they couldn't have forseen Hillsborough. Blair knew perfectly well that launching a war would result in the deaths of British servicemen and many Iraqis but he still went ahead, because he wanted to further his status as a world statesman.

Mancie, lad, I think you're on a non-starter accusing Thatcher of "killing" Liverpool fans (despite her many other sins) and I think you're doing it to divert attention from the fact that that the party you support harbours a potential war criminal.

No potential about it in my book

Sunflower49 · 11-09-2012, 09:39

Ugh.I was aquainted with a guy who was in this. He had PTSD and he was a violent, aggresive, emotionally abusive arsehole, took a lot of £ off me too.
Great memories gave me a shudder then!
Ahem sorry. Okay, to blame, it's not going to be just one person or one dimension present(policing/governing/fans/other authorities etc). I think a lot of it is attitude. Around the time of H/borough disaster football hooliganism was the new newsworthy thing for society and a lot of the authorities would have had a one-sided way of regarding (most) fans, to the point where they had an opinion on them of not as worthy as other human beings. Those in charge of seeing to the gates and the passages being fit for the event thought more about control than about human safety.
Thatcher, sure if she hadn't have existed, it wouldn't have happened but I think Thatcherism's more or less blameless here-high fences are a good idea for many reasons.
The documentary is brilliant, I've watched it more than once but when all's said it's there for entertainment as well as enlightenment, and it's only a representation.
It's very sad though. The whole thing's very sad.

Less · 11-09-2012, 10:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarmouse0707

Ugh.I was aquainted with a guy who was in this. He had PTSD and he was a violent, aggresive, emotionally abusive arsehole, took a lot of £ off me too.

Was in what? the Hillsborough disaster or the Iraqi war?

gynn · 11-09-2012, 10:24

Thatcher´s sin wasn´t in insisting on high fences - her intention there was for safety following a string of pitch invasions throughout the eighties which could themselves have resulted in people getting killed.

Her sin was in not recognising (or not wanting to recognise) that the Hillsborough disaster was caused by the disastrous implementation of the fences - no escape routes, police trained for riots rather than dealing with accidents, and appallingly inept leadership of the police on the day.

By shielding the true culprits, and shifting the blame onto the innocent, she was guilty of abuse of power of the worst order. Some of the ways she did it, eg influencing subsequent police reports, coroners inquests and inquiries, etc MUST be brought out, so that history can judge her as the person she really was.

And as for the Sun, I can put my hand on my heart and say that I have never ever bought it since 1989, and the sight of the odious Kelvin McKenzie on TV still always makes me reach for the off switch. I´m not remotely interested in anything that abominable man has to say.

Phew! Rant over!

Wynonie Harris · 11-09-2012, 10:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by gynn

By shielding the true culprits, and shifting the blame onto the innocent, she was guilty of abuse of power of the worst order. Some of the ways she did it, eg influencing subsequent police reports, coroners inquests and inquiries, etc MUST be brought out, so that history can judge her as the person she really was.

Wouldn't dispute that, but that doesn't constitute "near manslaughter" as Mancie's contending. Also, there equally needs to be a full enquiry into the Iraq war, the WMD dossier and Blair's conduct. In fact, I'd go further and say Blair needs to be brought to trial. But I don't suppose you'd agree with that as you don't think Blair's a liar, so presumably you believe everything he's said about the war.

Sunflower49 · 11-09-2012, 11:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Less

Was in what? the Hillsborough disaster or the Iraqi war?

Lol somebody else I told about it said that EXACT same thing!Lol.

Yes H\borough. He was a proper mess, has never worked since. Lost his father in it. Not sure why Ms Martyr here decided it was a good idea to get involved, nobody to blame but myself! I won't go into it heavily unless anybody wants to know but he wasn't right, I suffered a lot due to it. Perhaps I should claim to have PTSD myself

(I'm joking).

Quote:

Originally Posted by gynn

Thatcher´s sin wasn´t in insisting on high fences - her intention there was for safety following a string of pitch invasions throughout the eighties which could themselves have resulted in people getting killed.

Her sin was in not recognising (or not wanting to recognise) that the Hillsborough disaster was caused by the disastrous implementation of the fences - no escape routes, police trained for riots rather than dealing with accidents, and appallingly inept leadership of the police on the day.

By shielding the true culprits, and shifting the blame onto the innocent, she was guilty of abuse of power of the worst order. Some of the ways she did it, eg influencing subsequent police reports, coroners inquests and inquiries, etc MUST be brought out, so that history can judge her as the person she really was.

And as for the Sun, I can put my hand on my heart and say that I have never ever bought it since 1989, and the sight of the odious Kelvin McKenzie on TV still always makes me reach for the off switch. I´m not remotely interested in anything that abominable man has to say.

Phew! Rant over!

It's as if the disaster isn't the acutal disaster. The disaster is, the means of 'covering it up', the blaming those who had no control. I know from the aforementioned dullard I dated, that the campaigning etc,and the issues people could not come to terms with, were focused on the authorities and their lack of sympathy, scapegoating, rather than the happenings thsmselves.
I brought 'The Sun' home by mistake once. I used to work in a club where newspapers were chucked out at the end of the day and I used to take them all home to read and then use to line the animal cages. When I got back, the room had been ransacked-Mr Hillsborough had found the paper and destroyed it, along with everything else in its path...

Tealeaf · 11-09-2012, 12:02

Who was responsible for the Heyshel killings? No doubt about that one....at least a dozen
scousers banged up for manslaughter as I recall and all English clubs slung out of Europe.

churchfcrules · 11-09-2012, 12:08

i think anger is one of the stages of grief, and in "normal" circumstances that stage has its own natural progression, however when a disaster on this scale, and the victims families perception of justice isnt reached, there cannot be complete closure, and some individuals never really escape from the anger stage, or as often the guilt stage too

sugermouse, did he display outbursts of guilt as he would anger?

and as a side note, if he was at hillsbrough he was too old for ya anyways, :P

Sunflower49 · 11-09-2012, 12:25

First paragraph, totally agree.
Well yes, he did-feeling guilty that he remained alive afterwards when his father didn't, also his father hadn't wanted to go for some reason, so he felt his father would have been spared had he listened to him. I know I would find that difficult, I have a guilt complex myself.
However, he was so, so horrible that toward the end sympathy was not there. I am no psychologist, but the way he was behaving, I have to say was unacceptable-trauma or not. It takes something such as this discussion for me to remember that I am still affected by the experience with him.
Ha!Do you even know my age?

gynn · 11-09-2012, 12:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris

Also, there equally needs to be a full enquiry into the Iraq war, the WMD dossier and Blair's conduct. In fact, I'd go further and say Blair needs to be brought to trial. But I don't suppose you'd agree with that as you don't think Blair's a liar, so presumably you believe everything he's said about the war.

I'd support anything that brings out the truth. If that leads to Blair being brought to trial, then so be it. I'm no supporter of Blair - I was questioning how intelligent he really was, or whether he was just happy to play lapdog to the war mongering of Bush.