|
To be honest, a lot of this is just going to be confirming or putting in writing details that are already known or widely accepted. That the Sun headline was based on information being fed out by the South Yorkshire Police, and in particular, a Tory MP (Irvine Patnick) is not new. Kelvin Mackenzie never named his source, but it's been basically known that it was him for a good while. Similarly, that all the deceased were given blood alcohol tests at autopsy was known already, and actually formed part of the evidence against the police series of events (none of them were drunk). That ambulances weren't let onto the field because the fans were "fighting" and that the police's intial concern was to form a barrier across the pitch to stop Liverpool fans from attacking the Forest fans in the other end were also both public, there are witness statements from the paramedics involved. The new information is really the edited police statements and the evidence that people could have survived past 3.15pm. The reason why that's important, for anyone that isn't au fait with this, is that the original coroner's inquiry basically discounted any events after that point as being relevant. That is the cut-off point when you're either alive or dead. In setting the 3.15pm cut-off, that absolves the police of most responsibility there. Basically, "yes, they could have done more, but everybody was already dead or unsaveable by that point, so let's not break balls". For a report to say that people could have survived after that point is therefore an incredibly key point that could make a lot of difference to the legal status of things. That said, I tend to agree with the sentiment that it's realistically too late for anyone who was actually responsible to be held to account, particularly when you talk about it in terms of the complicity between the police, the press and the politicians to advance an agenda and to protect their mates (some things never change). I don't see that you "fix" Hillsborough by arresting the guy who opened the Leppings Lane gate. Far more of it was to do with cultures and attitudes of very senior people that ultimately made it what it was.
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2012 14:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 14:57 |
|
|
Fat Guy Sexting posted:Kelvin MacKenzie just offered his 'profuse apology'. gently caress him with a rake.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2012 15:13
|
|
|
I mean, it's not as if you're talking about a newspaper editor who printed one incorrect story as an error of judgement; he's been the cheerleader for "print whatever, sell papers, it's all a big loving laugh, yeah" for years
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2012 15:28
|
|
|
Scott Bakula posted:How the gently caress did he get a BBC job Due to the unique way the BBC is funded, the number of cunts given air-time must be balanced against the number of non-cunts given airtime It's the same reason Melanie Phillips keeps getting invited on Question Time over more rational, moderate voices, such as David Icke
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2012 15:36
|
|
|
yeah it's a good thing that no other information came out between then and 2006 when you decided to do a little dance about how clever you were the way you know you're a oval office is when literally Piers Morgan has more integrity than you do
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2012 15:48
|
|
|
The Collector posted:I felt like a try hard idiot plastic for a long time for refusing to read articles linked from the sun but I don't regret it for a second. Nobody who didn't buy the Sun yesterday is going to buy it today, and they're going to avoid printing "THE SUN: GET ANGRY ABOUT STUFF AND LIES" just because. That said, I'm reading the report now, and for what it's worth, both Whites News Agency and Irvine Patnick are basically getting their stories directly from South Yorkshire Police officers. I was assuming that there'd be a lot of hearsay, conjecture and chinese whispers involved, but no, the police were openly saying to reporters that supporters stole stuff and offered to rape people.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2012 22:41
|
|
|
Ninpo posted:Heaven forfend journalists investigate stuff. That's not in dispute. It's a fairly major thing, though, that these are stories being put out by multiple police officers, unsolicited, to reporters and MPs in the days after Hillsborough.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2012 22:54
|
|
|
The relevant sections on Patnick and Whites:quote:The interventions of Irvine Patnick MP quote:White’s News Agency and the ‘authenticity’ of the story If both of those accounts are true, it's incredibly damning for the police.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2012 23:20
|
|
|
Fat Guy Sexting posted:No I mean every conviction over that period, 116 doctored statements by senior officers. From reading the report, what they're referring to are statements to the Taylor inquiry, and SYP basically said up front that they'd edited statements, but to remove matters of "opinion" as opposed to fact. There was no great need for them to do that, and that much was said at the time, but then everything carried on as normal. I'm not sure that what they've done there is actually illegal, in that context, although obviously done to remove criticism of police actions on the day.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2012 23:36
|
|
|
Ninpo posted:The fact that it was an unsuitable venue is pretty damning. That was made clear with the Taylor Report, though. I'm not sure the FA have an obligation to come out and make a statement on an issue that was effectively addressed 20 years ago.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2012 23:47
|
|
|
Ninpo posted:This is confusing me...if there was already a report exonerating the fans and damning the police, what's the missing link? I believe the gist of it is essentially just a massive release of government paperwork relating to Hillsborough and analysis thereof. I think the families have always believed that there was foul play and there'd be something in these documents that would force someone to take responsibility for what happened. I still don't believe there is, but that's not really the point. The Taylor Report took witness statements, and then came to the conclusion that the police had failed to manage the crowd properly, the stadium (and most others) was fundamentally unsafe, yadda yadda yadda. As I say, those things were all really known before. He didn't look at who'd said what to which newspaper in the aftermath, because that was neither here nor there. He established what caused the disaster and then went home. The information that's coming out today is mostly about the actions of the police and the government behind the scenes in the wake of the disaster. I believe I mentioned earlier today, the only truly significant item I see outside of that is for them to look at the autopsy record and throw out the 3.15pm cut-off.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2012 00:13
|
|
|
irlZaphod posted:The subsequent Tory and Labour governments, while they may not have been privy to the cover-up, had the records there in the House of Lords. They were only opened because of the work done by Andy Burnham, Steve Rotherham, and all the others who have campaigned. There was no need for the Government to wait ~20 years to look at the records. To be fair, I heard the number earlier put at "400,000 documents". To be honest, that sounds like crap, but I can certainly see that Jack Straw's first priority on taking office was not "bring me a ham roll and a big bin full of stuff from the 80s that'll take six months to read". If you were going to do it, you need to set up a panel and do it properly.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2012 00:19
|
|
|
Again, I'm not sure why there's a real need for the FA to come out and offer an apology when their culpability for what happened at Hillsborough was determined 20 years ago with the Taylor Report, and they fully implemented every change that Taylor asked for as a result (despite people in this thread saying that doing so "killed" football/was a Tory plot to disenfranchise the working class). Considering that nothing's come out now that places any further culpability on the FA, and there's no suggestion that they were complicit with anything SYP were doing, I don't see that the FA is required to issue anything more than a general statement of support for the families.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2012 14:17
|
|
|
Brian Reade made the point even before the report came out - I'm sure there were some dudes who showed up and had drank one or more beers. I'm sure someone turned up without having a ticket looking to blag or buy one. This is something that has happened at every football match ever played. It also happens at tennis matches (I personally know a dude who decided to shotgun eight cans of cider rather than have them confiscated by Wimbledon security). This also happens at the loving opera. If your argument is that the police report should read, "A DRUNK DUDE WAS THERE AND HE WAS SINGING WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO DO", literally all forms of human gathering should be banned. For the police's argument to hold weight, you have to basically accept that that they were essentially set upon by a baying mob, far above what could normally be expected in that situation, and were forced to take emergency measures, losing control of the situation. That was rejected by Taylor a long time ago. It was clear that they did take emergency measures, and they did lose control of the situation, but that was caused primarily by the multiple problems inherent in the design of the stand and turnstiles, and secondarily by inefficient police procedures.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2012 21:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 14:57 |
|
|
That's somewhat moving away from the main point, though. It's not mutually exclusive to say that there are still questions to be answered about Hillsborough and that there are also certain people in Liverpool who are prone to ridiculous bouts of self-righteousness and cloying sentimentality. This does not make Boris Johnson any less of a oval office for printing insults against the dead that were disproven twenty years ago.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2012 23:08
|
|