Point of order: If you had been deriding people whose opinion does not match your own and then your opinion is completely validated by a lengthy independent inquiry and theirs shown to be a crock of shite, would you feel apologetic about being occasionally harsh in your words to them or just expect them to STFU?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Hillsborough the search for the truth
- Thread starter pornomagboy
- Start date
The Large One
Who's Next?
Now don't be horrid to the poor lamb. He's struggling with much easier questions than that one.
ROSM
Well-known member
Where have I been abusive?
You said that your common sense and belief is that the tragedy was caused by ticketless liverpool fans. Those were your aspersions.
You said that I was all three wise monkeys - yet I demonstrated to you that I saw, heard and read the accusations you were drawing on and had researched them and reached an alternative view. I directed you towards where there was documentary evidence that could help you see an alternative to your view. I even explained how I had once had similar views to you.
I respectfully await your response.
Bwian
Kiss my (_!_)
- Jul 14, 2003
- 15,898
At least we now know 'wellquick' has nothing to do with your intellect or wit.
Tooting Gull
Well-known member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 11,033
I have no sympathy for Mackenzie at all, he's got it coming for what was first and foremost a very poor piece of journalism, using allegations from people with a probable agenda of blame-shifting as fact, without balance or substantiation in a huge story. And then that very poor piece of journalism caued untold distress to already devastated people, and assisted the police in the cover-up.
But that is part of the second injustice. The first injustice was why 96 people died in the first place, and KM didn't actually kill them. The police have been heavily criticised but people are (generally) and have been in this case specifically very loath to criticise the ambulance services, however this was far from their finest hour as an organisation. And there must be people at both SWFC and the city council grateful for Mackenzie's antics, because it took some of the spotlight away from them for passing that death-trap fit to use.
But that is part of the second injustice. The first injustice was why 96 people died in the first place, and KM didn't actually kill them. The police have been heavily criticised but people are (generally) and have been in this case specifically very loath to criticise the ambulance services, however this was far from their finest hour as an organisation. And there must be people at both SWFC and the city council grateful for Mackenzie's antics, because it took some of the spotlight away from them for passing that death-trap fit to use.
ROSM
Well-known member
there is nothing in this that contradicts the Taylor Report but this does go further. This is further truth. The problem is that many people didnt believe, or want to believe the Taylor report.
Among the many who are to blame for the total misconception of what happened that day, surely one of the vilest is this ex Tory MP Sir Irvine Patnick. A person I believe is still alive. No word from him, but If nothing else his Knighthood should swiftly be removed.
Sir Irvine Patnick was one of the sources for The Sun newspaper's notorious coverage of the Hillsborough disaster in April 1989. In September 2012, the publication of the report by the independent panel investigating the disaster confirmed that "the source for these despicable untruths was a Sheffield news agency reporting conversations with South Yorkshire Police and Irvine Patnick, the then MP for Sheffield Hallam."[2] Earlier, Sun editor Kelvin Mackenzie had said of his coverage: "It was a fundamental mistake. The mistake was I believed what an MP said."[3] The Daily Express also carried the story, under the headline "Police Accuse Drunken Fans" and giving Patnick's views, saying he had told Margaret Thatcher, whilst escorting her on a tour of the grounds after the tragedy, of the "mayhem caused by drunks" and that policemen had told him that they were "hampered, harassed, punched and kicked".
Sir Irvine Patnick was one of the sources for The Sun newspaper's notorious coverage of the Hillsborough disaster in April 1989. In September 2012, the publication of the report by the independent panel investigating the disaster confirmed that "the source for these despicable untruths was a Sheffield news agency reporting conversations with South Yorkshire Police and Irvine Patnick, the then MP for Sheffield Hallam."[2] Earlier, Sun editor Kelvin Mackenzie had said of his coverage: "It was a fundamental mistake. The mistake was I believed what an MP said."[3] The Daily Express also carried the story, under the headline "Police Accuse Drunken Fans" and giving Patnick's views, saying he had told Margaret Thatcher, whilst escorting her on a tour of the grounds after the tragedy, of the "mayhem caused by drunks" and that policemen had told him that they were "hampered, harassed, punched and kicked".
At the point of this post, [MENTION=4251]ROSM[/MENTION] hadn't been abusive to you ONCE.
I'm sorry, but you are showing yourself up here, fella.
Last edited:
I dont believe that even if they have found evidence that Liverpool fans contributed to the disaster that it could ever be allowed to be made public.
Why not? But in any case, it really doesn't matter. The fact that CCTV evidence got "lost" and SYP changed something like 116 of the 164 statements to suit their story tells us all we need to know.
The Large One
Who's Next?
Are you just trying to be edgy and contrary?
How could they have found evidence when, as was proved 20 years ago, none existed?
Every single document (400,000 of them), including the ones previously hidden, are available to download and review. Go and read them for yourself.
No one would of accepted , the outrage and fallout would be on another scale to the last 23 years. I just dont think they would open themselves up to this and faced another 20 years of analysis and further dissection.
redneb
Active member
Question: Can Duckenfield be prosecuted now?
Bwian
Kiss my (_!_)
- Jul 14, 2003
- 15,898
That's a bit of a silly thing to say. There was every effort made by S Yorkshire Police, The Sun, Thatcher, Ingham and may others to blame Liverpool fans. Despite these efforts (which includes 164 statements that were altered), the truth came out in the Taylor Report and now, today, with all of the new evidence that proves the massive cover up that has been at the centre of the JFT96 campaign.
If Liverpool fans were to blame, it would have been evident long before now. Why do you think the families of the victims have been non-stop in their efforts to get the truth out in the public domain? They have known the truth for 23 years and they have got their reward today, if you can call it reward.
Tooting Gull
Well-known member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 11,033
CCTV evidence getting 'lost' is the sort of thing you see in conspiracy films, incredible to think it actually went on from public servants.
I wish I could say I was surprised by today's news, but I'm not. It's what most people's gut feeling told them had happened, but the scale of the cover-up and having it finally confirmed is still shocking.
If any normal person altered witness statements like that in such circumstances, they would go to prison, simple. There has to be some further action to unearth those responsible.
And there has to be a new inquest. For some of the dead, it may be the same outcome. For many, it won't. The 3.15 cut-off was always ridiculous.
You got me wrong, im not saying liverpool fans were to blame, im just saying if they were then these reports wouldnt be available. We will never know if I am right , have a few theories behind this which go deeper but not the place for this. I re-iterate , Im agreeing with the latest findings and my comment is as an aside perhaps for another time