Hillsborough document release

[RJRB]

I walked through Hillsborough corner and along Penistone Road.Many Forest fans were in a similar buoyant(rowdy) and drunken state ,many coming out of what was then Safeway or Tesco (now Wilcos) with their cans of beer.

That's what big football crowds were like at that time irrespective of who they supported.

I stopped going to away matches because of the moronic behaviour of some " fans" who were only there for a boozy day out.

[Anna Glypta]

Are we not talking of morals too,or just legalities just because you say so?

 

As far as I can see he merely passed on information that he'd been given by the police. He even added the caveat that he couldn't confirm the stories.

The journalists at various newspapers wrote up stories based on these stories and police press releases. It seems Kelvin McKenzie added the TRUTH banner to the Sun's stories to the disgust of the jornalist who wrote the story. No other newspaper claimed anything other than the stroies had been taken from police after the event.

I realise that is an inconvenient TRUTH for someone like you who clearly wants to make political capital out of the event.

 

Perhaps you should turn your attention to the part played by Sheffield council. It was failure to ensure that the ground was safe or even had a safety certificate in place that led to 96 deaths.

[F. Sidebottom]

Your making this in to an Owls discussion, which is unfortunate. Why should i have to enlighten you?

 

But as you are pushing the issue.

 

The Owls covered up the certificate issue for a start. Two Owls off here mailed me yesterday and commented they knew nothing of the matter, did you?

 

The Owls are linked in the Prime Ministers comments.. "the ground failed to meet the minimum standards and the DIFICIENCES WERE WELL KNOWN "

 

 

Again my view is there were many failings from many organisations, but when the new inquest is opened, the topic of the stadium being unfit for purpose will be brought up.

 

Am sorry you have lowered the thread to local only issues.

 

But the stadium , (therefore the Owls) has been brought in to question by the media and experts on law issues.

 

Why should you enlighten me? Because you are suggesting SWFC covered things up. so if you have made that accusation I'd simply like to know where, from the report, you got that. Simple really.

 

I'm not suggesting for a minute the SWFC are without blame.

 

The ground was old - as were many/most grounds of the time.

 

And safety was maintained to a budget - probably set too low.

 

But what I'd like to know is was it just that they had neglected their duties in not maintaining it right, had they got the right paperwork but it wasn't up to date, and did they lie to cover things up afterwards.

 

I've not read anything to suggest SWFC lied to cover things up afterwards.

 

Others suggest they have.

 

If that is the case, where have they read this?

[RJRB]

No they dont - They should have been at the other end of the ground but for **** poor planning and arrogance.

 

Although Liverpool had the largest home support both sides would have had more supporters than tickets available whichever ends they had.

Similarly I have been to a semi with Derby on the Kop and Man Utd at Leppings Lane.

It was all about the direction that most fans would be approaching from and the need to keep them apart.

If only ticket holding fans travelled to the match then it is less of a problem,but we know that even now many travel to over subscribed games without a ticket,

[Hemibr]

Although Liverpool had the largest home support both sides would have had more supporters than tickets available whichever ends they had.

Similarly I have been to a semi with Derby on the Kop and Man Utd at Leppings Lane.

It was all about the direction that most fans would be approaching from and the need to keep them apart.

If only ticket holding fans travelled to the match then it is less of a problem,but we know that even now many travel to over subscribed games without a ticket,

2 issues here

 

1. S Y Police allowed ticketless everton fans into oakwell so no suprpirise that ticketless fans turned up - where does the blame lie ?

 

2. Keeping fans apart is not governed by geography and in this case the approach from N Sheffield and S Sheffield allowed any side to be easily accessed by any team via diversion (if required ) up Parkside Rd and at Leppings lane roundabout).

 

It follows from kinder garden maths that bigger club gets bigger end and for that matter this is not hindsight and was heavily mooted by the football community as being stupid before the game.

 

All the astonished people at the extent of the cover up simply astonishes me - it was as predictable as night follows day with the only surprise that it has been allowed to be outed.

[Andy1867]

2 issues here

 

1. S Y Police allowed ticketless everton fans into oakwell so no suprpirise that ticketless fans turned up - where does the blame lie ?

 

2. Keeping fans apart is not governed by geography and in this case the approach from N Sheffield and S Sheffield allowed any side to be easily accessed by any team via diversion (if required ) up Parkside Rd and at Leppings lane roundabout).

 

It follows from kinder garden maths that bigger club gets bigger end and for that matter this is not hindsight and was heavily mooted by the football community as being stupid before the game.

 

All the astonished people at the extent of the cover up simply astonishes me - it was as predictable as night follows day with the only surprise that it has been allowed to be outed.

Its not "kinder garden" math...Forest had the biggest ticket allocation...I believe some 4000 more...dunno why, because theres no argument about who's the bigger club....the kinder garden math would surely be "The largest allocation..gets the largest end"...The F.A sorted ticket allocation out....thats where it went wrong on that part....allayed to the ease of entry....Forest fans approached mainly on Penistone...and there were more of them...Liverpool fans had the Lepp

[LeMaquis]

Some questions/answers about Sir Irvine Patnick's role:

4. Did he truthfully repeat untrue statements by the Police? Yes.

5. Was he entitled to rely on statements by the Police and to assume them to be true? Yes.

 

Coming from a solicitor this is quite amazing. Truthfully repeat untrue statements? That sounds like Orwellian Newspeak. As for 5 he, as an MP, should have checked his facts. Only someone with an axe to grind or someone very incompetent would have passed on something to a national newspaper in the aftermath of an event like Hillsborough without checking the truth of what he was passing on. Patnick was part of a conspiracy to lie. You, as a solicitor, should know that lying by an MP or as part of the legal process is indefensible. Patnick knew he was lying when he passed on the police's propaganda.

[Hemibr]

Its not "kinder garden" math...Forest had the biggest ticket allocation...I believe some 4000 more...dunno why, because theres no argument about who's the bigger club....the kinder garden math would surely be "The largest allocation..gets the largest end"...The F.A sorted ticket allocation out....thats where it went wrong on that part....allayed to the ease of entry....Forest fans approached mainly on Penistone...and there were more of them...Liverpool fans had the Lepp

 

Praps just me and the football fraternity at the time who recognised the stupidity before the event and the police presumably had opportunities to raise objections in the way they always seem to have had re pub opening times and days of scheduling kick offs.

 

The separating fans does not hold water - A scout group could have organised any team to any end.

 

But anyways - I started the thread to see if anyone can direct me to online signatures of police officer so any help appreciated.

[Andy1867]

Coming from a solicitor this is quite amazing. Truthfully repeat untrue statements? That sounds like Orwellian Newspeak. As for 5 he, as an MP, should have checked his facts. Only someone with an axe to grind or someone very incompetent would have passed on something to a national newspaper in the aftermath of an event like Hillsborough without checking the truth of what he was passing on. Patnick was part of a conspiracy to lie. You, as a solicitor, should know that lying by an MP or as part of the legal process is indefensible. Patnick knew he was lying when he passed on the police's propaganda.

Spot on....surely a person in such an exalted position , where his every word is scrutinised should have checked his facts, rather than repeating what was surely hearsay?....

[Andy1867]

Praps just me and the football fraternity at the tome who recognised the stupidity before the event and the police presumably had opportunities to raise objections in the way they always seem to have had re pub opening times and days of scheduling kick offs.

 

The separating fans does not hold water - A scout group could have organised any team to any end.

 

But anyways - a started the thread to see if anyone can direct me to online signatures of police officer so any help appreciated.

Mate..I agree Liverpool should have had the larger ticket allocation....and the Kop...but once allocated...the geography of getting the two amounts of fans to their respective ends is justified....what happened next is indefensible....