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

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

1 hour ago, mkowl said:

 

Really gets my goat that people have to be "outraged" or "appalled" by everything these days.

 

 

What a scandalous thing to say. I'm outraged on behalf of all goats.

[StudentOwl]

The majority of Pokémon Go's Pokestops are memorials. The whole design of them is that they're landmarks of interest and importance. The War Memorial outside City Hall is a Pokestop

 

Has the delusion on Mersyside gone so far that they now believe they're memorial to be more special than all others? 

I look forward to the campaigns and outrage that will exist once word gets out that war memorials, and hospitals (places people actually die every day!) are Pokestops. 

[DeeJayOne]

18 minutes ago, ViolaOwls said:

This is one of the most boring threads I've bothered to open. As for a bbc documentary, well we all know they never broadcast both sides to a story, just what there lefty editors want to hear.

i will only listern to my mate that gave evidence. 

 

One of the most boring posts I've ever bothered to read.

 

The documentary was actually independently made and then later broadcast on the BBC, as far as I know. Actually takes into account many, many, many people that were there on the day (and not just 'mates') that are worth 'listerning' to and then later adds on the independent inquest stuff, but surely if you'd taken a little bit of time to just watch it you'd find out and actually have a grasp of of the reality of it.

 

At least give it a watch and THEN judge it, eh?

 

 

[Cheshowl]

34 minutes ago, ViolaOwls said:

This is one of the most boring threads I've bothered to open. As for a bbc documentary, well we all know they never broadcast both sides to a story, just what there lefty editors want to hear.

i will only listern to my mate that gave evidence. 

Isn't that only "listerning" to one side of the story?

[Ever the pessimist]

49 minutes ago, DeeJayOne said:

The most amazing thing about this is that some social justice warrior in Sheffield has got offended on behalf of others and then gone to the trouble of contacting and complaining about it to the Liverpool Echo.

 

 

 

He is originally from liverpool.

 

Suspect he will also be offended that Hillsborough has been voted most beautiful building in Sheffield.

[jambler]

2 hours ago, Tommo_ said:

 

 

You should watch the documentary. It's a real eye opener. SYP had our pants down over the disaster.

 

I could introduce you to around 50, probably double that people that can back up what other things happened that day, including what has already been mentioned. Including my family members. 

 

Can't be arsed to get into it though. 

[33]

Not sure why stuff like this has to descend into stuff like this.

 

A bit of respect costs nothing.

 

On another point though I caught a very rare Kleptomon there...!

 

 

[cactus]

31 minutes ago, DeeJayOne said:

 

One of the most boring posts I've ever bothered to read.

 

The documentary was actually independently made and then later broadcast on the BBC, as far as I know. Actually takes into account many, many, many people that were there on the day (and not just 'mates') that are worth 'listerning' to and then later adds on the independent inquest stuff, but surely if you'd taken a little bit of time to just watch it you'd find out and actually have a grasp of of the reality of it.

 

At least give it a watch and THEN judge it, eh?

 

 

Hardly independant, when the programs "factual consultant" was  Phil Scratton a leading member of the Hillsborough Independant Panel.

[Costello 77]

1 hour ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

What a scandalous thing to say. I'm outraged on behalf of all goats.

Scalegoats.

[Guest The Claw]

feeling also run deep in italy

[Owlsend]

WHATS Pokemon ????

[bigthinrob]

33 minutes ago, DeeJayOne said:

 

One of the most boring posts I've ever bothered to read.

 

The documentary was actually independently made and then later broadcast on the BBC, as far as I know. Actually takes into account many, many, many people that were there on the day (and not just 'mates') that are worth 'listerning' to and then later adds on the independent inquest stuff, but surely if you'd taken a little bit of time to just watch it you'd find out and actually have a grasp of of the reality of it.

 

At least give it a watch and THEN judge it, eh?

 

 

I've watched it and to be honest i think it just reinforces what we sort of already knew.  That the Coppers lied to cover their arses, but to my mind doesn't certain footage contradict the findings of the enquiry, that no one was drunk and no one attended without tickets. I seem to remember one guy (a Liverpool fan) saying he regularly travelled without tickets (including this one) and that he had had a skin full before the game, as had his mates. 

 

I'm not casting aspertions, it's what happened in those days, it does make fascinating if morbid (at times very morbid) viewing but makes a bit of a lie re the absolute assertion that Liverpool fans had no part to play in what unfolded.

 

I would not have got involved in anything relating to this again and don't really want to get involved in any sort of slanging match.  The impatient and slightly patronising tone however, tends to suggest that no one has bothered their arses to watch it and if they did, everyone's attitude's would be totally different.

 

Well I did, and they're not! 

[lukestheman82]

1 minute ago, The Claw said:

feeling also run deep in italy

my feelings will run very deep in Mrs Theman82 later if I can get her drunk enough.

[ViolaOwls]

59 minutes ago, DeeJayOne said:

 

One of the most boring posts I've ever bothered to read.

 

The documentary was actually independently made and then later broadcast on the BBC, as far as I know. Actually takes into account many, many, many people that were there on the day (and not just 'mates') that are worth 'listerning' to and then later adds on the independent inquest stuff, but surely if you'd taken a little bit of time to just watch it you'd find out and actually have a grasp of of the reality of it.

 

At least give it a watch and THEN judge it, eh?

 

 

Have you researched the film maker first?

[ViolaOwls]

10 minutes ago, bigthinrob said:

I've watched it and to be honest i think it just reinforces what we sort of already knew.  That the Coppers lied to cover their arses, but to my mind doesn't certain footage contradict the findings of the enquiry, that no one was drunk and no one attended without tickets. I seem to remember one guy (a Liverpool fan) saying he regularly travelled without tickets (including this one) and that he had had a skin full before the game, as had his mates. 

 

I'm not casting aspertions, it's what happened in those days, it does make fascinating if morbid (at times very morbid) viewing but makes a bit of a lie re the absolute assertion that Liverpool fans had no part to play in what unfolded.

 

I would not have got involved in anything relating to this again and don't really want to get involved in any sort of slanging match.  The impatient and slightly patronising tone however, tends to suggest that no one has bothered their arses to watch it and if they did, everyone's attitude's would be totally different.

 

Well I did, and they're not! 

To be fair that's a perfect reply

[DeeJayOne]

5 minutes ago, bigthinrob said:

I've watched it and to be honest i think it just reinforces what we sort of already knew.  That the Coppers lied to cover their arses, but to my mind doesn't certain footage contradict the findings of the enquiry, that no one was drunk and no one attended without tickets. I seem to remember one guy (a Liverpool fan) saying he regularly travelled without tickets (including this one) and that he had had a skin full before the game, as had his mates. 

 

I'm not casting aspertions, it's what happened in those days, it does make fascinating if morbid (at times very morbid) viewing but makes a bit of a lie re the absolute assertion that Liverpool fans had no part to play in what unfolded.

 

I would not have got involved in anything relating to this again and don't really want to get involved in any sort of slanging match.  The impatient and slightly patronising tone however, tends to suggest that no one has bothered their arses to watch it and if they did, everyone's attitude's would be totally different.

 

Well I did, and they're not! 

 

Wait - seems you have misunderstood the findings of the inquest. The inquest DID NOT say that 'no-one was drunk'. Neither did it say that 'no-one attended without tickets'. I think it is safe to say that some fans were drunk and that some fans were ticketless (and this is even acknowledged in the wider text of the inquest report).

 

HOWEVER, what the inquest DID say was:

 

Was there any behaviour on the part of the football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles? 

 

Jury's answer: No

 

That answer came after months and months of seeing and hearing evidence and testimony and was given by a jury who were appraised of all the facts. To contradict that verdict is just facetious for the sake of being facetious. 

 

For record, the full verdicts were:

 

1. Basic facts of the disaster: Do you agree with the following statement: "Ninety-six people died as a result of the disaster at the Hillsborough stadium on 15 April 1989 due to crushing in the central pens of the Leppings Lane terrace, following the admission of a large number of supporters to the stadium through exit gates."

Jury's answer: Yes.

2. Police planning for the semi-final match: Was there any error or omission in police planning or preparation which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation that developed on the day of the match?

Jury's answer: Yes

"We feel there were major omissions in the 1989 operational order".

3. Policing of the match and the situation at the turnstiles: Was there any error or omission in policing on the day of the match which caused or contributed to a dangerous situation developing at the Leppings Lane turnstiles? 

Jury's answer: Yes 

"The police response to the increasing crowd at Leppings Lane was slow and uncoordinated. 

"The road closure and sweep of fans exacerbated the situation. No filter cordons were place in Leppings Lane. No contingency plans were made for the sudden arrival of a large number of fans. 

"Attempts to close the perimeter gates were made too late".

4. Policing of the match and the crush on the terrace: Was there any error or omission by commanding officers which caused or contributed to the crush on the terrace? 

Jury's answer: Yes

"Commanding officers should have ordered the closing of the central tunnel". 

5. The opening of the gates: When the order was given to open the exit gates at the Leppings Lane end of the stadium was there any error or omission by the commanding officers in the control box which caused or contributed to the crush on the terrace? 

Jury's answer: Yes 

"Commanding officers did not inform officers in the inner concourse prior to the opening of Gate C. 

"Commanding officers failed to consider where fans would go. 

"Commanding officers failed to order the closure of the central tunnel prior to the opening of Gate C".

6. Unlawful killing: Are you satisfied, so that you are sure, that those who died in the disaster were unlawfully killed? To answer 'yes' to this question, the jurors must be sure of the following:

• Firstly, that Ch Supt David Duckenfield owed a duty of care to the 96 who died
• Secondly, that he was in breach of that duty of care 
• Thirdly, that the breach of Mr Duckenfield's duty of care caused the deaths
• Finally, the jury must be sure that the breach which caused the deaths amounted to "gross negligence." 

Jury's answer: Yes

7. Behaviour of the supporters: Was there any behaviour on the part of the football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles? 

Jury's answer: No 

8. Defects in Hillsborough stadium: Were there any features of its design, construction and layout which were dangerous or defective and which probably or may have caused or contributed to the disaster?

Jury's answer: Yes

"The design and layout of the crush barriers in P 3 and 4 were not fully compliant with the green guide. 

"The removal of barrier 144 and the partial removal of barrier 136 would have exacerbated the waterfall effect of pressure towards the front of the pens. 

"The lack of dedicated turnstiles for individual pens meant that capacities could not be monitored. 

"There were too few turnstiles for a capacity crowd. 

"Signage to the side pens was inadequate".

9. Licensing and oversight of the stadium: Was there any error or omission in the safety certification and oversight of Hillsborough Stadium that caused or contributed to the disaster? 

Jury's answer: Yes

"The safety certificate was never amended to reflect changes to the Leppings Lane end of the stadium. Therefore capacity figures were not updated".

10. Conduct of Sheffield Wednesday FC before the day of the match: Was there any error or omission by SWFC and its staff in the management of the stadium and/or preparation for the semi final match on 15 April 1989 which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation which developed on the day of the match? 

Jury's answer: Yes

"The club did not approve the plans for dedicated turnstiles for each pen. 

"The club did not agree any contingency plans with the police. 

"There was inadequate signage and inadequate and misleading information on the tickets".

11. Conduct of Sheffield Wednesday FC on the day of the match: Was there any error or omission by SWFC and its staff on 15 April 1989 which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation that developed at the Leppings Lane turnstiles and in the west terrace? 

Jury's answer: No

11a If "no", was there any error or omission by SWFC and its staff on 15 April 1989 which may have caused or contributed to the dangerous situation that developed at the Leppings Lane turnstiles and in the west terrace? 

Jury's answer: Yes

"Club officials were aware of a huge number of fans still outside at 14:40. They should have requested a delay in kick off.

12. Conduct of Eastwood and Partners (SWFC engineers): Should they have done more to detect and advise on any unsafe or unsatisfactory features of the stadium which caused or contributed to the disaster?

Jury's answer: Yes

Eastwood and Partners did not make their own calculations when they became consulstants for SWFC, therefore the initial capacity figures and all subsequent calculations were incorrect. 

Eastwood and Partners failed to recalculate capacity figures each time changes were made to the terraces. 

Eastwood and Partners failed to update the safety certificate after 1986. 

13. Emergency response and the role of South Yorkshire Police: After the crush in the West Terrace had begun to develop was there any error or omission by the police which caused or contributed to the loss of lives in the disaster?

Jury's answer: Yes

"The police delayed declaring a major incident so appropriate emergency response was delayed." 

14. Emergency response and the role of South Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance Service (SYMAS): After the crush in the west terrace had begun to develop, was there any error or omission by the ambulance service SYMAS which caused or contributed to the loss of lives in the disaster? 

Jury's answer: Yes

"They failed to ascertain the nature of the problem at Leppings Lane. 

"The failure to recognise and call a major incident led to delays in responding to the emergency."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-35401436

[lukestheman82]

5 minutes ago, DeeJayOne said:

 

Wait - seems you have misunderstood the findings of the inquest. The inquest DID NOT say that 'no-one was drunk'. Neither did it say that 'no-one attended without tickets'. I think it is safe to say that some fans were drunk and that some fans were ticketless (and this is even acknowledged in the wider text of the inquest report).

 

HOWEVER, what the inquest DID say was:

 

 

 

 

That answer came after months and months of seeing and hearing evidence and testimony and was given by a jury who were appraised of all the facts. To contradict that verdict is just facetious for the sake of being facetious. 

 

For record, the full verdicts were:

 

 

 

The Jury also said O.J was innocent, don't make them right.

 

I'm not saying the Hillsborough enquiry rulings are wrong, but to quote Jury decisions doesn't necessarily mean it's right.

 

Obviously the bricks and mortar of Hillsborough has to take a share of the blame, SYP has to take a massive share of the blame, but I don't get how the Liverpool fans are in no way responsible.

[vid80]

2 hours ago, Belfast Owl 2 said:

 

No it won't

 

You want it to be so you can moan.

 

 

 

Nah i dont do moaning

[HIGHERSTATE]

24 minutes ago, TheEnd1976 said:

WHATS Pokemon ????

 

top trumps with little monsters you can catch using gps on your phone

[bigthinrob]

3 minutes ago, DeeJayOne said:

 

Wait - seems you have misunderstood the findings of the inquest. The inquest DID NOT say that 'no-one was drunk'. Neither did it say that 'no-one attended without tickets'. I think it is safe to say that some fans were drunk and that some fans were ticketless (and this is even acknowledged in the wider text of the inquest report).

 

HOWEVER, what the inquest DID say was:

 

 

 

 

That answer came after months and months of seeing and hearing evidence and testimony and was given by a jury who were appraised of all the facts. To contradict that verdict is just facetious for the sake of being facetious. 

 

For record, the full verdicts were:

 

 

 

To be brutally honest i'm not really interested in the way the 'enquiry' structured the questions.

 

Ask a question a certain way and you will get a certain answer.

 

If i have 'misunderstood' the findings of the enquiry. Have you or any of the 'enquiry experts' asked yourselves why the question re Leppings Lane was specifically asked in the way it was? Surely the problems were as a cumulative effect of what had happened all day, before during & after.

 

To isolate the question re Liverpool fans in context with just the events at Leppings Lane is ridiculous and to my mind was structured to enable them to come to the decision it did.

 

If the question had been structured along the lines of "Did the Liverpool fans behaviour & conduct contribute to the disaster in any way", maybe the answer would have been different.

 

As far as i'm concerned, it was horrible & tragic and the documentary brought back horrible memories, but by structuring the main question as it was and not judging it on all the day's events, i'm sorry, in my opinion it is nothing more than a whitewash.