I am going to write on a subject about which I know nothing - so no change there, then!

Hillsborough!  Dread word and I mean 'dread' in all its senses.  For the benefit of my foreign readers I have provided a Wiki link to the subject which I have not read but, given the notorious controversy over this slaughter and the way in which Wiki reports are produced, I would urge caution.  However, I would strongly urge everyone to read Anna Racoon's commentary on the subject which, whatever you think about her conclusions, does provide a superb insight, from an insider, of the deeply peculiar 'Scouse' mentality.

As a soppy-soft Southerner, myself, whose knowledge of football and football crowds is limited to what I hear on 'TOOORKSPOOORT' every morning and the 'telly' on an occasional basis, I have avoided this emotional minefield.  But enough is enough!  In the umpteenth  investigation and report into this catastrophe, a committee led by the Bishop of Liverpool, and I know you will find this hard to believe, found the Liverpool fans totally innocent, and the South Yorkshire Police, the Emergency Services, the coroner, Sheffield Wednesday football club, The Sun newspaper, Kelvin McKenzie, some deadbeat Tory ex-MP and everyone else in the whole wide world, including me, er, and you, I guess, guilty!  I have only one thing to say to this - BOLLOCKS!

What I have never understood about this entire farrago is that the families of the deceased have been waging a campaign to clear the names of their loved ones!  But surely no-one ever supposed that they were guilty in any way at all.  As a commenter at Anna Raccoon's writes:

“Those that died were not drunken thugs but those that caused their deaths were Drunken Liverpudlians that arrived en mass without tickets & stormed the entrances as kick off approached. I was there I came in from the Liverpool end, I was pestered for tickets from Liverpudlians pouring out of the pubs asking for spares. Of course the culprits then scarperred after the carnage & were not breathalysed. Quite why the dead would have their blood tested for Alcohol is pointless, they were there on time with their tickets. (My emphasis)

It seems to me to be a classic example of that old philosophical problem expressed in the analogy of a peanut resting on an anvil: is it the hammer that is the cause of the crushing of the peanut or the anvil?  Whatever, the peanut is obviously completely innocent.  In this case, the anvil was supplied by the Sheffield club and the local council, both of whom knew for months ahead that the ground was unsafe and that no safety certificate had been issued.  The hammer was the late arrival of, shall we say, 'boisterous' Liverpool fans many of whom did not have tickets.  Did they file in to their places in a normal civilised manner?  Obviously not because there are 96 dead bodies to testify to the very opposite.  Now, it wasn't the Sheffield authorities who pushed the crowds forwards, nor was it the South Yorkshire Police, and whilst The Sun and its editor are large public figures they didn't do any of the shoving either, and the well-behaved fans at the front who had arrived early with tickets certainly didn't misbehave.  Nor did I, er, did you?  No, I thought not.  The stupid, senseless, irresponsible and - I choose the word with care - uncivilised shoving was from one source only - a mob of Liverpool football fans at the back of the crowd.  It's interesting that none of those fans, or their families, seem to have come forward to proclaim their innocence.  Why would they when all the attention has been centred on the dead who were then and always have been palpably innocent?

Needless to say, the behaviour of the 'authorities', using that word in its widest sense, after the event was as despicable as it was inevitable.  Lack of a moral code is not confined to bankers!

 

Comments

[david morris]

DD

Perhaps it 'twas ever thus, but surely the most shocking revelation is the systematic & widespread manipulation/amending by the Guardians of the Lor of their statements. Weren't these offered up as evidence under oath to various Enquiries ? I won't however be holding my breath waiting for their day in Court. And the Police wonder why they have completely lost the respect of the silent majority...

btw

Hope you don't get that scouser commenter on your blog, the one who now has made his life mission to burn Anna R at the stake.

Kind regards

[David Duff]

Oooh! I didn't get as far as him. What the hell, bring 'em on!

[dearieme]

Heysel

[David Duff]

Quite so, DM, and they were all innocent little lambs, too!

[Stephen Newton]

I've only skimmed your piece because you tell us from the start that you are writing from a position of ignorance.

Nevertheless, your conclusion that the the authorities' behaviour was inevitable troubled me. The British police, as you acknowledge by implication, have a long history of corruption and cover-up. The death of Ian Tomlinson comes to mind as a good recent example; CCTV from one of the most closely monitored parts of the country 'disappeared' and the post mortem conducted by the police's go-to pathologist in cases requiring cover-up.

But I digress. What troubles me is your apparent acceptance of this state of affairs. You seem more concerned to excuse and apologise for the police (who you accept are corrupt) than to argue for their reform.

[JK]

Uhm... forgive me David, I just woke up.

Do I need a ticket to watch (read) what looks to be a melee?

I like melees - long as I'm not in the midst of a drunken, unruly, crowd.

[David Duff]

Stephen, welcome to D&N. My claim to know nothing comes under the heading of hyperbole, and even worse, headline hyperbole! Of course, I do know something but I do not claim to know every single detail. Also, some of the factors involved I know from general knowlege rather than the specifics of this case. For example, I'm sure that you, like me, are not surprised that organisations band together to cover up wrong-doing - if you are then you must be very young!
(Ooops, no, I've just looked at your photo and young you ain't!)

All that apart, I think you stretch matters to suggest that I "excuse and apologise for the police", in fact I think I described them as "despicable". However, what one elderly gent (well, nearly a gent!) can do about it is, to be frank, minimal. Have you any suggestions?

What I can do is write this blog ("An unworthy thing, sir, but mine own") and try to suggest to my readers that the Bishop of Liverpool and his committee of clowns couldn't think their way out of a paper bag!

[David Duff]

JK, were I to find myself in a drunken melee there is no man I would rather have by my side than you, er, drunk or sober! And waddya mean you just woke up!!! It's nearly midday your time, get a move on, you have some canvassing to do for Obama, haven't you?

[Stephen Newton]

David
There's no need to be so self-depreciating.

It is interesting that you are so vociferous on the issue of the bishop's intellectual capacity, while being equally keen to explain to your readers that police corruption, while despicable, is inevitable.

It may be true that some police corruption is inevitable, in the same way that the occasional burglary is inevitable. But accepting that the occasional burglary is inevitable does not mean we should leave our doors and windows open when we go out. Just as it is possible to reduce the burglary rate, so is it possible to reduce police corruption. Punishing the corrupt is likely to form part of any effective strategy.

As the blogger whose complaint to the Charity Commission led to the closure of Liam Fox's Atlantic Bridge, I have witnessed first hand the role blogs can play in fighting corruption.

So my advice to you, whatever your age, is not to give up on yourself so easily.

[johnd2008]

I understand that the next move in the saga, is to petition the Pope to have all Liverpudlians sanctified.

[David Duff]

Stephen, I wrote a longer response which subsequently disappeared into the ether so, on this second effort, suffice to say that crusading is not my thing.

John, I cannot imagine how it has not passed through the Pontif's mind already - it's so obvious - at least, it is to your average scouser!

[Hank]

David

Responsibility is not divisible.

The police and authorties are responsible for what they did and did no due to contribute to the disaster. This is one of the incidents whose study has led to better engineering to prevent repeats. Real cuprites are those today who do not take advantage of what was learned and still set up similar death traps.

But the thugs are eaually if not more responsible. If they had not tried to rush the gats there would have been no tragedy no matter how poor the design. A loud denouncement (or criminal action) of acting like drunken thugs helps teach others in the future not to do the same.

Blame should be spread all around where it is deserved.

http://eclecticmeanderings.blogspot.com/
Hank’s Eclectic Meanderings

[David Duff]

Hank, I think it is important in cases like this to differentiate beteen contributory factors and prime movers. The design of the stands, the failure of the local authority and the ineptness of the police and emergency services are contributory but the prime mover was the mob that pushed in late. And,as DM reminded us, they have form!

[Louise]

The concept of collective guilt is a primitive and terrible  thing, whether directed at football fans or police officers.

HOWEVER: football fans were pretty crazy in the eighties:

http://m.youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=%2F#/results?q=panorama%20football%20hooligans

Am I the only one who thinks that 'Call Me Dave' should just STFU?

Has he run out of things to apologise  for?

As for Liverpool, I've never been treated with such warmth and generosity in any other city (apart from New York) but given that I was a child at the time and visited the place twice a year I can only provide a skewed perspective.

[Stephen Newton]

What a shame, David. It must have been so frustrating to compose a lengthy response only to see it disappear 'into the ether'. I hope you enjoyed some satisfaction from its composition.

I am sure it was a witty and withering riposte.

[dearieme]

"as DM reminded us, they have form!" Not exactly: I have no evidence that suggests that any of the murderers from the Heysel took part is misbehaviour at Hillsborough. My point was more that what happened at Hillsborough was essentially an accident and what happened at Heysel was essentially murder. And, of course, that Liverpudlians are overwhelmingly silent about the latter.

[Louise]

Could that be because most 'Liverpudlians' were not affected?

Or do all cities think with a hive-mind?

[David Duff]

It was a mob action and thus 'collective' guilt is unavoidable, Louise. And it definitely does not indicate guilt of any sort to the 99.99% of scousers who were no where near the place. On th eother hand, the collective whining from a much larger proportion of their populace does deserve a large rasberry!

Probably not, Stephen, just more wind and piss!

"And, of course, that Liverpudlians are overwhelmingly silent about the latter [Heysel]." Just as the silence from those Liverpudlians who were involved at the back of the crowd at Hillsborough has been equally 'deafening'!

[Louise]

"On th eother hand, the collective whining from a much larger proportion of their populace does deserve a large rasberry!"

I'm wondering how that even works.

[David Duff]

Don't look for practicalities here, Louise, that's above my pay scale! All I meant was that there was a tiny percentage of scousers who killed those people but a very much larger number who have been whining about how unfair everyone has been to them.

[Anna Raccoon]

David Morris,

You'll be pleased to now that despite the blustering, bullying and intimidation from those brave souls who carry Stanley knives at Kop games....the Anna Raccoon blog sails on as always. Unbowed!

I guess they finally figured that I am hosted in the US, and you have to put your hand in your pocket and pay for a court case before you can get an order to shut me up. They're slow, but they got there in the end.