Anger as Pokemon Go uses SWFC Hillsborough memorial as 'Pokestop'

[lukestheman82]

39 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

39 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

40 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

96 people died. The tiniest bit of blame isn't really the issue to me. The fundamental causes are. 

96 people died. The tiniest bit of blame isn't really the issue to me. The fundamental causes are. 

39 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

96 people died. The tiniest bit of blame isn't really the issue to me. The fundamental causes are. 

96 people died. The tiniest bit of blame isn't really the issue to me. The fundamental causes are. 

indeed, I agree, to a point. However, the reports, inquiries do not seem to accept that even in a small way, fans hold any blame.

[HIGHERSTATE]

5 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

 

The Sun story was despicable - in the aftermath of almost a hundred deaths. Fair play to Liverpudlians for sticking to their guns on this. Should they embrace Murdoch and let bygones be bygones? 

 

Fair enough...I agree with what you are saying...But criticizing John Barnes for picking out a story to discuss on tv is getting too petty..

[Guest mkowl]

That is their choice - the crux is The Sun were fed that story in the same way as stories are today. That is the one piece that has always been remembered but like I say once the Taylor Report came out there was no blame to fans. The Sun story seems to have developed it's own legend over the years. Be interesting to know what the headlines were on the report publication - had The Sun effectively changed its stance compared to the original story

 

To me there are 2 elements to the truth in this. What happened upto 3.06pm and what happened after. In terms of the former the Inquest told us nothing new. It was all in the Taylor Report 

[Dick_Turpin]

7 minutes ago, mkowl said:

If you read the Taylor Report then both SWFC and the safety engineers were criticised. What I have never got in this is that the reports in The Sun were published in the immediate days after. From memory there was an interim Taylor Report published fairly quickly and a final report thereafter. As I say all pretty damning and no blame attached to the fans.

 

The real concern I recall at the time was SWFC would get punished by the authorities, there may be prosecutions and there may be a financial impact on the Club.

 

The first Inquest was of course a sham but it must be remembered the cause was still accidental death. I don't see where ever other than in the first editions of The Sun that fans were blamed. The issue was that the families wanted an unlawful killing verdict. That is where the Justice movement  came from - but accidental death doesn't equate to fans being responsible. So I have never understood this fight to clear the fans names because apart from one newspaper no one has ever said this, certainly no official report has

 

What I also don't get is the lack of a media storm when the first Inquest result came out. Ok there was the police actions that concealed or manipulated evidence but I don't recall outrage at a verdict of accidental death. That seemed par for the course in light of other disasters - the key for the media was the lessons to be learned

 

More evidence came out in the inquest about Eastwoods and their practices in connection to Wednesday.

 

The interim report was on the causes - the final report was recommendations re all-seater stadia etc. 

 

The fans were blamed by a concerted SYP campaign that continued for years and polluted discourse on Hillsborough for 2 decades - including repeated assertions by Mackenzie, Bernard Ingham's outburst and the Police Federation. SYP apologised and then at the inquest their lawyers promptly overturned that apology by following lines of questioning that sought to shift blame from the police. The implication of the failure of the police to discipline Duckenfield etc and the CPS to prosecute senior officers was that officially someone else was to blame and that someone else could only be the fans.

 

As regards the media - some pressed on but ultimately I guess most saw the first inquest as the end of the line and moved on to the next big story. Only the continued - pretty heroic - campaign kept the story in the limelight. 

[Dick_Turpin]

13 minutes ago, mkowl said:

That is their choice - the crux is The Sun were fed that story in the same way as stories are today. That is the one piece that has always been remembered but like I say once the Taylor Report came out there was no blame to fans. The Sun story seems to have developed it's own legend over the years. Be interesting to know what the headlines were on the report publication - had The Sun effectively changed its stance compared to the original story

 

To me there are 2 elements to the truth in this. What happened upto 3.06pm and what happened after. In terms of the former the Inquest told us nothing new. It was all in the Taylor Report 

 

Sadly the Sun report polluted minds - including the people who worked there. Mackenzie in 2006 said - 

 

"All I did wrong there was tell the truth. There was a surge of Liverpool fans who had been drinking and that is what caused the disaster. The only thing different we did was put it under the headline "The Truth". I went on The World at One the next day and apologized. I only did that because Rupert Murdoch told me to. I wasn't sorry then and I'm not sorry now because we told the truth."

 

That view was around and still is albeit a bit more tempered nowadays.

[Dick_Turpin]

45 minutes ago, HIGHERSTATE said:

Apparently John Barnes is in the stuff now because he was reviewing stories in the Sun on the Wright Stuff..

 

You know what, this crap will never go away..Nobody is allowed to have an opinion different to or criticize Liverpudlians..thats what wee wees people off.

 

And don't forget the Sun didn't run the new inquest verdict on its front page - which was an amazing decision re such a big story.  It actually made Page 8.

 

[Guest mkowl]

8 hours ago, rickygoo said:

 

More evidence came out in the inquest about Eastwoods and their practices in connection to Wednesday.

 

The interim report was on the causes - the final report was recommendations re all-seater stadia etc. 

 

The fans were blamed by a concerted SYP campaign that continued for years and polluted discourse on Hillsborough for 2 decades - including repeated assertions by Mackenzie, Bernard Ingham's outburst and the Police Federation. SYP apologised and then at the inquest their lawyers promptly overturned that apology by following lines of questioning that sought to shift blame from the police. The implication of the failure of the police to discipline Duckenfield etc and the CPS to prosecute senior officers was that officially someone else was to blame and that someone else could only be the fans.

 

As regards the media - some pressed on but ultimately I guess most saw the first inquest as the end of the line and moved on to the next big story. Only the continued - pretty heroic - campaign kept the story in the limelight. 

Fair points maybe my perception was wrong going back but did folk actually believe the fans were to blame based on The Sun or the lack of prosecutions. I genuinely saw this as people moving on, like you did. The key for football fans was that the fences went, all seater stadia gradually came in, I think fans realised their behaviour had contributed to the culture around football and how it was policed so that changed. At the same time the Premier League started and the type of fan and what that fan wanted - so called gentrification arose.

 

Clearly there was a resentment in the Liverpool area with the outcome and you can see with good reason why that was the case but everyone else just sort of accepted the outcome. 

 

 

[Dick_Turpin]

2 hours ago, mkowl said:

Fair points maybe my perception was wrong going back but did folk actually believe the fans were to blame based on The Sun or the lack of prosecutions. I genuinely saw this as people moving on, like you did. The key for football fans was that the fences went, all seater stadia gradually came in, I think fans realised their behaviour had contributed to the culture around football and how it was policed so that changed. At the same time the Premier League started and the type of fan and what that fan wanted - so called gentrification arose.

 

Clearly there was a resentment in the Liverpool area with the outcome and you can see with good reason why that was the case but everyone else just sort of accepted the outcome. 

 

 

Accepted to different degrees if the views on here are representative of anything. 

[DeeJayOne]

13 hours ago, lukestheman82 said:

I get that, but if 1,2 or 20 ticketless fans ended up in the central pens, then surely that has to have had an effect.

 

If I pee into a lake and someone later drowns in that lake, am I then responsible for their death?

 

 

The point being that the number of drunk and or ticketless fans was so minute it didn't have a significant or crucial effect. The disaster would have happened anyway with or without them due to the other, significant and crcuial factors that played their unfortunate part.

 

 

 

 

[Paolo Di Catio]

11 hours ago, rickygoo said:

 

And don't forget the Sun didn't run the new inquest verdict on its front page - which was an amazing decision re such a big story.  It actually made Page 8.

 

 

You sure about that?

[DeeJayOne]

Yes.

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/apr/27/the-sun-didnt-think-hillsborough-verdict-merited-front-page-coverage

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/36148868/hillsborough-inquests-why-the-suns-front-page-has-upset-people

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sun-criticised-failing-mention-hillsborough-7842159

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/hillsborough-verdict-the-sun-and-the-times-criticised-for-leaving-inquest-verdict-off-front-page-a7002806.html

 

 

[Dick_Turpin]

9 minutes ago, Paolo Di Catio said:

 

You sure about that?

 

How many times can you get it wrong?

 

You are yet again confusing the Hillsborough Independent Panel and the inquest. They were entirely different procedures staffed by entirely different people for entirely different purposes. That Sun headline refers to the HIP report - the clue is in the the strapline 23 years after Hillsborough. The disaster happened in 1989. The inquest verdict was delivered in 2016. That's a gap of 27 years. 

 

This is the front page you should have been looking for. Together with its Times counterpart. A staggering news misjudgement on behalf of two Murdoch papers? Possibly

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 26, 2016 by rickygoo

[Paolo Di Catio]

Fair enough. I don't buy any papers but I remember em putting up an apology "the real truth" 

[Dick_Turpin]

15 minutes ago, Paolo Di Catio said:

Fair enough. I don't buy any papers but I remember em putting up an apology "the real truth" 

 

You don't need to buy papers to be able to understand the respective timelines. It's written on the picture you posted.

 

It's typical of Hillsborough. People "know" things whereas the actual facts are ignored.  The most obvious is when people talk about the 96 "innocents" who arrived early who died - killed by the latecomers who came through the opened gate. In reality over 20 of those who died came through that gate and not through the turnstiles. The implication then is they weren't so innocent.  Or the talk of "thousands" of ticketless fans when the reality was the Lep terrace overall was at about its recognised capacity. 

 

A High Court judge appointed by a Liverpool hating PM who idolised coppers exonerated the fans and laid the blame at the door of  police inadequacy.  96 football fans died watching the game we and they all loved and their families were treated disgracefully - in the immediate aftermath and over the succeeding years. But still people want to talk about whinging Scousers, fans not taking their share of the blame, plans to storm gates etc etc. 

 

The Sun weren't the only ones to vilify football fans. Ken Clarke said Thatcher regarded us as the enemy within. (She had a few of those).   4 years earlier the Sunday Times had described football as a "slum sport played in slum stadiums, increasingly watched by slum people, who deter decent folk from turning up." I don't recognise myself in all that.

 

At the time Edward Pearce in the Sunday Times wrote:-  For the second time in half a decade a large body of Liverpool supporters has killed people...the shrine in the Anfield goalmouth, the cursing of the police, all the theatricals, come sweetly to a city which is already the world capital of self-pity. There are soapy politicians to make a pet of Liverpool, and Liverpool itself is always standing by to make a pet of itself. 'Why us? Why are we treated like animals?' To which the plain answer is that a good and sufficient minority of you behave like animals."  Pearce went on reflect that if South Yorkshire Police bore any responsibility, it was "for not realising what brutes they had to handle."

 

In 2004 in an article about Ken Bigley the Spectator said - "The deaths of more than 50 Liverpool football supporters at Hillsborough in 1989 was undeniably a greater tragedy than the single death, however horrible, of Mr Bigley; but that is no excuse for Liverpool’s failure to acknowledge, even to this day, the part played in the disaster by drunken fans at the back of the crowd who mindlessly tried to fight their way into the ground that Saturday afternoon. The police became a convenient scapegoat, and the Sun newspaper a whipping-boy for daring, albeit in a tasteless fashion, to hint at the wider causes of the incident."

 

People still believe some of those things written over the last 30 years. There are recognisable echoes of it in this thread. The initial propaganda campaign about Hillsborough  - and that's what it was - conned me for a while. Maybe that's why it makes me so angry that other people get angry about Liverpool fans not taking even the "tiniest" bit of blame when the fundamental cause of the Disaster has been staring us in the face for almost 3 decades and why I will keep saying what bI believe about it  - albeit not starting threads. 

 

 

 

 

[Paolo Di Catio]

11 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

 

You don't need to buy papers to be able to understand the respective timelines. It's written on the picture you posted.

 

It's typical of Hillsborough. People "know" things whereas the actual facts are ignored.  The most obvious is when people talk about the 96 "innocents" who arrived early who died - killed by the latecomers who came through the opened gate. In reality over 20 of those who died came through that gate and not through the turnstiles. The implication then is they weren't so innocent.  Or the talk of "thousands" of ticketless fans when the reality was the Lep terrace overall was at about its recognised capacity. 

 

A High Court judge appointed by a Liverpool hating PM who idolised coppers exonerated the fans and laid the blame at the door of  police inadequacy.  96 football fans died watching the game we and they all loved and their families were treated disgracefully - in the immediate aftermath and over the succeeding years. But still people want to talk about whinging Scousers, fans not taking their share of the blame, plans to storm gates etc etc. 

 

The Sun weren't the only ones to vilify football fans. Ken Clarke said Thatcher regarded us as the enemy within. (She had a few of those).   4 years earlier the Sunday Times had described football as a "slum sport played in slum stadiums, increasingly watched by slum people, who deter decent folk from turning up." I don't recognise myself in all that.

 

At the time Edward Pearce in the Sunday Times wrote:-  For the second time in half a decade a large body of Liverpool supporters has killed people...the shrine in the Anfield goalmouth, the cursing of the police, all the theatricals, come sweetly to a city which is already the world capital of self-pity. There are soapy politicians to make a pet of Liverpool, and Liverpool itself is always standing by to make a pet of itself. 'Why us? Why are we treated like animals?' To which the plain answer is that a good and sufficient minority of you behave like animals."  Pearce went on reflect that if South Yorkshire Police bore any responsibility, it was "for not realising what brutes they had to handle."

 

In 2004 in an article about Ken Bigley the Spectator said - "The deaths of more than 50 Liverpool football supporters at Hillsborough in 1989 was undeniably a greater tragedy than the single death, however horrible, of Mr Bigley; but that is no excuse for Liverpool’s failure to acknowledge, even to this day, the part played in the disaster by drunken fans at the back of the crowd who mindlessly tried to fight their way into the ground that Saturday afternoon. The police became a convenient scapegoat, and the Sun newspaper a whipping-boy for daring, albeit in a tasteless fashion, to hint at the wider causes of the incident."

 

People still believe some of those things written over the last 30 years. There are recognisable echoes of it in this thread. The initial propaganda campaign about Hillsborough  - and that's what it was - conned me for a while. Maybe that's why it makes me so angry that other people get angry about Liverpool fans not taking even the "tiniest" bit of blame when the fundamental cause of the Disaster has been staring us in the face for almost 3 decades and why I will keep saying what bI believe about it  - albeit not starting threads. 

 

 

 

 

 

I just googled Sun real truth headline, never took much notice of the date as I'm on my iPhone and can't see the date. Even if they had printed it on the front page they'd have been criticised. 

You say that the ground was at capacity so no ticketless fans could've been there. Fans died in the tunnel which proves there were still many on the concourse and also seen videos of fans still outside. Seen estimations that to get them all in would've delayed the match @40mins. Where were these folk expected to go. I've seen many images and the whole of the Lepp is thronging, can't see where anybody else would've fitted tbh.

 

i agree with many things that have been said, but I just cannot agree with Question 7

"

• Was there any behaviour on the part of the football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles?”
  Verdict: NO"

 

[Dick_Turpin]

Here's a good analysis - they counted the number on the terrace via turnstiles and cameras. 

 

https://thegreatcritique.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/hillsborough-ticketlessness-was-not-a-factor-and-this-is-how-we-know/

 

The picture is interesting too - I think you can see where people would have fitted. 

[wenzdyboy]

14 hours ago, rickygoo said:

 

More evidence came out in the inquest about Eastwoods and their practices in connection to Wednesday.

 

The interim report was on the causes - the final report was recommendations re all-seater stadia etc. 

 

The fans were blamed by a concerted SYP campaign that continued for years and polluted discourse on Hillsborough for 2 decades - including repeated assertions by Mackenzie, Bernard Ingham's outburst and the Police Federation. SYP apologised and then at the inquest their lawyers promptly overturned that apology by following lines of questioning that sought to shift blame from the police. The implication of the failure of the police to discipline Duckenfield etc and the CPS to prosecute senior officers was that officially someone else was to blame and that someone else could only be the fans.

 

As regards the media - some pressed on but ultimately I guess most saw the first inquest as the end of the line and moved on to the next big story. Only the continued - pretty heroic - campaign kept the story in the limelight. 

 

The Mirror always stuck with the families.

[wenzdyboy]

27 minutes ago, Paolo Di Catio said:

 

I just googled Sun real truth headline, never took much notice of the date as I'm on my iPhone and can't see the date. Even if they had printed it on the front page they'd have been criticised. 

You say that the ground was at capacity so no ticketless fans could've been there. Fans died in the tunnel which proves there were still many on the concourse and also seen videos of fans still outside. Seen estimations that to get them all in would've delayed the match @40mins. Where were these folk expected to go. I've seen many images and the whole of the Lepp is thronging, can't see where anybody else would've fitted tbh.

 

i agree with many things that have been said, but I just cannot agree with Question 7

"

• Was there any behaviour on the part of the football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles?”
  Verdict: NO"

 

 

Sorry, but that is just not true. The whole of the lepp was never thronging. Where on earth you could get that idea from if you've watched all the footage is beyond me. The side pens never reached capacity. There were far too many in the central pens. After detailed studying of all the footage, Taylor recorded that of the whole of the 10,100 terrace capacity, there was somewhere in the region of 200 extra supporters. Not all of these were without a ticket either, as some were Liverpool fans with tickets for the Kop who were redirected to leppings Lane. And just for a tiny bit of balance, 1 of the 96 didn't have a ticket according to evidence given by a friend who was with him. 

From reading all the individual inquests of the 96, I don't recall any of them as having being recorded as 'died in the tunnel'. a small number it was 'unknown' where they died. A few died at the front of Pen 4. the majority perished at the front of Pen 3 in front of and around where the crush barrier collapsed.

[Guest mkowl]

41 minutes ago, Paolo Di Catio said:

 

I just googled Sun real truth headline, never took much notice of the date as I'm on my iPhone and can't see the date. Even if they had printed it on the front page they'd have been criticised. 

You say that the ground was at capacity so no ticketless fans could've been there. Fans died in the tunnel which proves there were still many on the concourse and also seen videos of fans still outside. Seen estimations that to get them all in would've delayed the match @40mins. Where were these folk expected to go. I've seen many images and the whole of the Lepp is thronging, can't see where anybody else would've fitted tbh.

 

i agree with many things that have been said, but I just cannot agree with Question 7

"

• Was there any behaviour on the part of the football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles?”
  Verdict: NO"

 

The key to that is "or contributed" - and I have to agree with your view

 

The question I would pose however is that situation should never have been allowed to develop - but having gone past the point of no return then the anxiety, panic and behaviour caused by the developing crush lead to the requirement to the gates being opened. If the question had stated "was there any deliberate behaviour" then I would say the verdict was right

 

The point I always make is that the historical behaviour of fans was a major factor in the disaster because games were policed with the threat of hooliganism and disruption arising, not on a public safety angle. We could argue for hours whether that was right or wrong - where the duty of care was - but if you had attended games at any time in the preceding 15 years you knew why that was the case.

[cactus]

43 minutes ago, Paolo Di Catio said:

 

I just googled Sun real truth headline, never took much notice of the date as I'm on my iPhone and can't see the date. Even if they had printed it on the front page they'd have been criticised. 

You say that the ground was at capacity so no ticketless fans could've been there. Fans died in the tunnel which proves there were still many on the concourse and also seen videos of fans still outside. Seen estimations that to get them all in would've delayed the match @40mins. Where were these folk expected to go. I've seen many images and the whole of the Lepp is thronging, can't see where anybody else would've fitted tbh.

 

i agree with many things that have been said, but I just cannot agree with Question 7

"

• Was there any behaviour on the part of the football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles?”
  Verdict: NO"

 

That was always going to be the the result for that question, don't forget David Cameron's statement to Parliament in September 2012 and all the subsequent media coverage, 18 months before the inquest had even started.