Hillsborough document release

[mikem8634]

I've been to a few semi-finals, and hundreds of football matches around that time, and since. There was almost always a certain amount of unruly behaviour at some point in big matches (and often smaller ones). I can't ever recall seeing what is in photo C294.

 

I consider the content, unusual. I have never seen that before or since. It looks worse in C295, and we're only talking minutes before chaos that is explained in the removed police evidence, [in their removed words] when none of them seemed to know what was going on, due to lack of radios and the 'open-mic' system clogged with lots talking at the same time.

 

This ISN'T suggesting that unruly behaviour was the cause mike, before you claim that that is what I am saying - I'm just answering what you bolded. Unruly means 'not conforming to rule' - and C294/295 and 299 suggest 'not conforming to rule' - Fans backed this and my knowledge up in court, comparing these pictures to other Hillsborough scenarios.

 

Hang on Ash, you originally provided the codes for the photos and stated, as above, that you had never seen behaviour of this type before in an attempt to prove unruly behaviour.

 

I then disproved that it was unruly behaviour as it was, in fact, survival behaviour. You make no mention that you had a perspective on those photos that was mistaken.

 

You then move on to defend the people making decisions at the time (SYP/Stewards etc.) who I have never criticised and have, in fact, lauded.

 

Then you lose me completely and start to talk about officer numbers and prisoners. I may be wrong but I sense in the bits that make little sense some attempt to still insist on unruly fan behaviour on some level - I'm genuinely unsure. (see next post)

 

All of that leaves me reluctant to examine your final point about physics because the last time I reviewed your evidence you just seemed to ignore the fact that you were mistaken, and proven so, and subsequently moved the goalposts.

 

I accept you are not saying the fans caused the disaster I just can't honestly tell what you are saying anymore.

 

My issue is that many accusations have been levelled at the Liverpool fans over the years - some vile, some casual and every point in between. You posted what I consider to be a pretty casual one relating to the quoted photos. I then provided evidence which disproved your suggestion that 'C294/295 and 299 suggest 'not conforming to rule' and you couldn't bring yourself to say 'fair enough' I got that one wrong.

 

Now, finally if I have misinterpreted your intentions or your last post I apologise in advance and would appreciate the perspective of a few other posters on the exchange.

Edited October 16, 2012 by mikem8634
(see next post)

[mikem8634]

 

Who were the fans that appeared to have meant there to be so few police around that area? - that's in the evidence.

 

The original notes say that (though this was BEFORE any danger started to appear) - that 'it seemed that there was only myself and PC2980 Wright left'

 

Reason stated, in the sentence before - 'during this build up [1430] the number of officers in our serial were steadily depleted by officers escorting prisoners to the detention area' (Huckstep page 14)

 

Were there more prisoners than usual? Less bobbys than usual? If you have found those figures (I know the number of police assigned to LL, so no need to show that one), then I'd love to read that - as you know if you've been reading the downloads, there is a LOT to get through. Even if there were more than usual, they still HAVEN'T caused the disaster, but to suggest that these details aren't contributory to the whole series of events, I find slightly perplexing.

 

Too few police then. Would it have made a difference to the whole outcome? Don't know. Nobody does.

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

-

I have re-read this a few times and now have, I think, some understanding of the scenario you are trying to present.

 

Are you suggesting the following? -

 

That a sudden number of fans arrived

That a significant number of officers were then involved in detaining a portion of those fans who, I presume, were 'unruly'

This then meant that there were insufficient officers remaining to deal with the ensuing crush

 

I find the question in bold particularly troubling as the only reason I can see for you asking it is to suggest the possibility of an unusual amount of poor behaviour and deflect any culpability away from SYP. Is that not just the same logic of black propaganda and 'The Truth' in a new watered-down version? The fact that you are so intent upon sifting through reams of evidence to find any scrap that can be pasted together to form a collage of events that ensures the Liverpool fans stay under a cloud is worrying. In that process you are searching for scraps and ignoring every assertion you find (and there are many) that the Liverpool fans that day were just a typical football crowd who were mismanaged. You have previously stated that your opinion now is as it was then and I'm starting to believe that this will always be the case.

[mikem8634]

Perhaps this is how it should be done,

http://aunitedview.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/hillsborough-misplaced-trust-justice.html

[LeMaquis]

You must have seen the film of the supporters milling about outside the turnstiles before the exit gate was opened. Surely that is evidence of unruly fans.

I know from first hand experience that an orderly queue can break down in a split second when a large contingent arrives intent on shoving to the front. Once a queue has collapsed into anarchy it is impossible to restore order. Hence the opening of the exit gate.

 

Every post of yours that I've read on this topic is based on hypothesis, assumption and speculation and never on facts. None of the things I've highlighted actually happened - milling around is hardly being unruly - and if they had that would still not be a reason to open the gate, but rather a reason for the police outside the ground to restore order. But there were hardly any police outside the ground due to a failure of policing.

 

You are arguing that the gates were opened because there was the possibility that the queue outside could collapse into anarchy. But you provide no evidence, as usual. Could you provide evidence when you post on this topic rather than some nebulous theory containing more ifs and bad guesswork than substantiated reality. Otherwise I will hypothesise, assume and speculate that you are just making things up as you go along due to a hidden agenda to protect the authorities, particularly the police,

 

For the record, David Cameron has apologised for the scandal, a scandal in which a Tory MP was central and the Tories are hardly anti-police. There will be criminal investigations. If you think you can change the course of what's going to happen by posting lies on here then you're in for a big disappointment. Maybe you can have an input into the invesitigations to come as you seem to know so much about what happened. But of course you know nothing but the lies and warped fantasies in your head.

[alchresearch]

and the Tories are hardly anti-police.

 

Unless your name is Andrew Mitchell

[*_ash_*]

Well, you managed to misquote me, then create several incorrect conclusions as a result.

 

Hang on Ash, you originally provided the codes for the photos and stated, as above, that you had never seen behaviour of this type before in an attempt to prove unruly behaviour.

 

No I didn't. I wrote exactly the opposite.

 

I've been to a few semi-finals, and hundreds of football matches around that time, and since. There was almost always a certain amount of unruly behaviour at some point in big matches (and often smaller ones). I can't ever recall seeing what is in photo C294.

 

Hang on Ash, you originally provided the codes for the photos and stated, as above, that you had never seen behaviour of this type before in an attempt to prove unruly behaviour. I then disproved that it was unruly behaviour as it was, in fact, survival behaviour. You make no mention that you had a perspective on those photos that was mistaken.

 

Since I didn't say that, then it couldn't have been to an attempt to prove unruly behaviour. You are trying to disprove something based on something that I didn't say.

 

What I actually said was...

 

There was almost always a certain amount of unruly behaviour at some point in big matches (and often smaller ones). I can't ever recall seeing what is in photo C294.

 

I consider the content, unusual. I have never seen that before or since.

 

-

 

You then move on to defend the people making decisions at the time (SYP/Stewards etc.) who I have never criticised and have, in fact, lauded.

referring to this you mean?...

look at the Hull City fans link a couple of pages back. I don't like to see Sheffield's police and medical staff -as a WHOLE- being called murderers and grubby ******* *******'s as we have seen - and continue to see.

 

When people say some of the things that I said had been posted in this thread, then I have pointed out their inaccuracies - i.e. looking at and showing the truth. I find it ironic mike that is all, that people are lying and making false conclusions, when the truth has finally been revealed.

 

Then you lose me completely and start to talk about officer numbers and prisoners. I may be wrong but I sense in the bits that make little sense some attempt to still insist on unruly fan behaviour on some level - I'm genuinely unsure. (see next post)

Ok, I'll quote that one separately.

 

All of that leaves me reluctant to examine your final point about physics because the last time I reviewed your evidence you just seemed to ignore the fact that you were mistaken, and proven so, and subsequently moved the goalposts.

 

I'm sure you have looked at it, it only takes a second. It shows quite clearly what I wrote long before we exchanged posts.

For any fan that used to regularly go to matches in that era, as I did, knew that being penned in like animals could be troublesome in an emergency.

 

And I haven't moved any goal-posts.

I may be wrong but I sense in the bits that make little sense some attempt to still insist on unruly fan behaviour on some level - I'm genuinely unsure.

 

Can you be clearer what you are implying because the end of the sentence is short of some key parts?

 

Are you saying that I'm trying to 'attempt to insist on unruly fan behaviour on some level for causing the disaster'?

[*_ash_*]

 

 

Were there more prisoners than usual? Less bobbys than usual? If you have found those figures (I know the number of police assigned to LL, so no need to show that one), then I'd love to read that - as you know if you've been reading the downloads, there is a LOT to get through. Even if there were more than usual, they still HAVEN'T caused the disaster, but to suggest that these details aren't contributory to the whole series of events, I find slightly perplexing.

 

Too few police then. Would it have made a difference to the whole outcome? Don't know. Nobody does.

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

-

I have re-read this a few times and now have, I think, some understanding of the scenario you are trying to present.

 

No, you have made your mind up that I'm a Sun reading idiot who is influenced by what the media tells me - you've made that quite clear in the latter part of this post.

 

What I have done, is read various evidence and I'm showing what it says. I've asked questions based on what it says. I'm not presenting anything. I've already stated my views on the causes. Now we have detailed evidence it's possible to look at all the positions.

 

What actually happens when so much information is released and folk believe media and Sun type things, is exactly what has been shown in this thread, and in places like Leppings Lane in the Hull video posted earlier.

 

-

 

Are you suggesting the following? -

 

That a sudden number of fans arrived

That a significant number of officers were then involved in detaining a portion of those fans who, I presume, were 'unruly'

This then meant that there were insufficient officers remaining to deal with the ensuing crush

 

I think it's a worthy question to ask 'how many people were detained and whether it was more or less than usual'. If more than usual was the case, then it would affect on the spot policing; if less were, then police numbers were perhaps not high enough. The 'I presume, were unruly' was a petty addition to the comment. I've yet to see any football fans being detained for good behaviour.

 

Are you suggesting the following? -

 

That a sudden number of fans arrived

That a significant number of officers were then involved in detaining a portion of those fans who, I presume, were 'unruly'

This then meant that there were insufficient officers remaining to deal with the ensuing crush

 

I didn't suggest that, I quoted the evidence, that the bobby said: 'it seemed that there was only myself and PC2980 Wright left'.

 

I find the question in bold particularly troubling as the only reason I can see for you asking it is to suggest the possibility of an unusual amount of poor behaviour and deflect any culpability away from SYP.

 

Perhaps because that is the only reason you can see, is the very reason why it is particularly troubling for you.

 

Is that not just the same logic of black propaganda and 'The Truth' in a new watered-down version?

 

No. Logic asks questions and find answers. Getting this evidence in the public domain was what was fought for, and to not be allowed to discuss it destroys the very thing that was fought for.

 

The fact that you are so intent upon sifting through reams of evidence to find any scrap that can be pasted together to form a collage of events that ensures the Liverpool fans stay under a cloud is worrying.

 

You have posted at least twice to my memory to read the evidence, now you criticize me for it? Liverpool fans may be 'under a cloud' in your eyes, but not mine.

 

As for the 'sifting' comment - other than the Inquiry to Hillsbro (Lord JT), I have kept to only using links that have been already quoted in here by posters already, generally from newspaper websites, to keep things clear. (though I have actually done a lot more sifting because of my own interest in law).

 

You have previously stated that your opinion now is as it was then and I'm starting to believe that this will always be the case.

Once again you've come to the wrong conclusion.

 

This assumes (or at least infers) that you think that I once thought that Liverpool fans were to blame, and now that hasn't changed.

 

What I actually said was (and after 23 years is still right)...

 

So far reading the new evidence, my view is still the same as it was at the time. [that] There will be blame issues as long as we all live.

[mikem8634]

Ash be honest - you said this

 

"Unruly means 'not conforming to rule' - and C294/295 and 299 suggest 'not conforming to rule' "

 

What can that mean other than here are 3 photos which suggest unruly behaviour?

Edited October 17, 2012 by mikem8634

[mikem8634]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

-

 

What I have done, is read various evidence and I'm showing what it says. I've asked questions based on what it says. I'm not presenting anything. I've already stated my views on the causes. Now we have detailed evidence it's possible to look at all the positions.

 

 

 

-

 

 

 

I think it's a worthy question to ask 'how many people were detained and whether it was more or less than usual'. If more than usual was the case, then it would affect on the spot policing; if less were, then police numbers were perhaps not high enough. The 'I presume, were unruly' was a petty addition to the comment. I've yet to see any football fans being detained for good behaviour.

 

 

 

 

You have posted at least twice to my memory to read the evidence, now you criticize me for it?

 

As for the 'sifting' comment - other than the Inquiry to Hillsbro (Lord JT), I have kept to only using links that have been already quoted in here by posters already, generally from newspaper websites, to keep things clear. (though I have actually done a lot more sifting because of my own interest in law).

 

 

Once again you've come to the wrong conclusion.

 

This assumes (or at least infers) that you think that I once thought that Liverpool fans were to blame, and now that hasn't changed.

 

What I actually said was (and after 23 years is still right)...

 

You seem to ask a lot of questions and present a lot of hypothetical scenarios that make reference to 'unruly' fan behaviour and 'prisoners'. Where are your questions and concerns about the behaviour of the police, the press, the ambulance service etc.? You say it's possible to look at all the positions but I only see you looking one way.

 

23 years of the most vile cover-up in UK history and you think 'how many people were detained and whether it was more or less than usual?' If you cannot see how that is a clear suggestion that bad behaviour limited the abilities of the police then I cannot help you. How is that different from Bettison's widely abhorred and discredited statement that Liverpool fans made policing on that day 'harder than it needed to be.'? I think, as most do, that after 23 years of smear the focus should be less on who was and more on who will be detained.

 

I am criticizing you not for reading the evidence but for filtering it through a bias which I will be surprised if I am the only one to recognise.

[mikem8634]

Ash - I can't imagine you haven't seen this given your dogged attention to the evidence. I can imagine that it doesn't fit in the elements of the evidence you find the most interesting and worthy of attention.

 

Independent Police Complaints Commission Statement

 

In response to Norman Bettison’s claim that Liverpool fans made policing Hillsborough ‘more difficult than it needed to be’

 

60. In relation to the complaints about his statement on 13 September 2012, I have read his statement, and his “updated comment” issued the following day. It does not seem to me that this is a matter requiring investigation – there is no doubt that he made the first statement, which many people regarded as highly offensive, and which flew in the face of the report’s definitive findings, and that he attempted to explain it with his second statement.

 

61. It was unwise of Sir Norman Bettison to issue a press statement attempting to exonerate himself immediately after publication of the report. It was also insensitive and inappropriate to make reference to fans’ behaviour at all – bearing in mind that publication of the report represented a vindication for the fans that their behaviour was not a factor.

 

http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/Pages/pr_121012.aspx

 

 

Please explain how Bettison's statement

 

that Liverpool fans made policing Hillsborough ‘more difficult than it needed to be’

 

differs from the following scenario you have presented -

 

 

Who were the fans that appeared to have meant there to be so few police around that area? - that's in the evidence.

 

The original notes say that (though this was BEFORE any danger started to appear) - that 'it seemed that there was only myself and PC2980 Wright left'

 

Reason stated, in the sentence before - 'during this build up [1430] the number of officers in our serial were steadily depleted by officers escorting prisoners to the detention area' (Huckstep page 14)

Were there more prisoners than usual? Less bobbys than usual? If you have found those figures (I know the number of police assigned to LL, so no need to show that one), then I'd love to read that - as you know if you've been reading the downloads, there is a LOT to get through. Even if there were more than usual, they still HAVEN'T caused the disaster, but to suggest that these details aren't contributory to the whole series of events, I find slightly perplexing.

 

Too few police then. Would it have made a difference to the whole outcome? Don't know. Nobody does.

 

 

They both arrive at the same insensitive, inappropriate and unwise place.

Edited October 17, 2012 by mikem8634