PaddockLad 14576 Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Funnily enough I suspect that the reason Thatcher has got off quite lightly is that I don't think they have access to cabinet minutes - maybe we'll have to wait for them to be released under the 30 year rule for that. The only thing they have is her press monkey Bernard Ingham (son of a Nottighamshire miner...who'd have thunk it??!!) saying years after that senior SYP officer's informed them that a drunk mob had stormed the gates. I've got a feeling that the meeting was found not to have been minuted, but any records couldve been removed before all the documents were handed over to the Hillsborough panel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26269 Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Funnily enough I suspect that the reason Thatcher has got off quite lightly is that I don't think they have access to cabinet minutes - maybe we'll have to wait for them to be released under the 30 year rule for that. The cabinet minutes were released early so they did have access AFAIK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 14576 Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 The cabinet minutes were released early so they did have access AFAIK. I thought that when it the panel was set up to reveiw the documents there was a school of thought that there would be something about the meeting in Sheffield betwen the SYP and Thatcher and it would implicate her in the cover up?....there was nothing found, but the cabinet discussing the Taylor Report was minuted and it was in there, and it says that Thatcher stated that the suspicion of a SYP cover up which the report hinted at was "depressingly familiar". Am no fan of the woman, if she was aware that the SYP were complete cunts she had pretty much allowed tham to act like that for the whole preceading decade in which she'd been PM and used them to smash the miners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 14576 Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 That post you quoted predates the report, which as far as I can tell, has said it found no evidence that Thatcher or the cabinet was part of the attempt to blame the fans. Jack Straw's comments are, while predictably political in their general terms, devoid of any reason to doubt the report. The Tories pointed out by contrast that rather than being the friends of the police, they were the ones who introduced measures in the 80s such as PACE and tape recorded interviews, which I'm sure you must be aware, were not welcomed with open arms by the police at all. Straw by contrast was part of the government that brought you RIPA, extraordinary rendition, detention without charge, trial without a jury, etc etc, all welcomed by the police as usefull 'tools' in the fight against crime, so he's an odd person to be praising if you think we live in a police state. Not as much as in the riot strewn 80s. Most of the riots were caused by the ill treatment of ethnic minorities by the police, as were last summers riots, again under a Tory-lead government. Labour's extreme trial detention laws were brought in under the banner "the war on terror", which is a very different thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
essembeeofsunderland 811 Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 The little footage shown on the news shows thousands of fans either standing on the pitch shellshocked or helping with stretchers with the police standing doing absolutely nothing. With reference to the safety certificate,has it ever been produced before any semi-final and has Hillsborough ever had one.Who's job was it to ask for it.Surely it was the job of someone at the FA.This is something that can easily be found out due to the amount of times an FA cup semi has been played there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3976 Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 The little footage shown on the news shows thousands of fans either standing on the pitch shellshocked or helping with stretchers with the police standing doing absolutely nothing. Or standing along the half way line because even though people were dying, preventing any bother with the Forest fans was their number one priority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 A lot of people forget that the Semi Final at Hillsborough the year before was also played between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest with fans in the same ends, almost on the same dates. So what was different? The only two things that were different to my knowledge were the police opened the gates outside, and they didn't shut the door leading to the centre pen. Lots of things caused the disaster, but that one simple thing would've stopped it, someone locking the centre pen (they did that the year before). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 It looks too full even then the year before, look 0:38. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
essembeeofsunderland 811 Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Has anyone noticed scousers on radio saying ` they shouldn't have put us in the Leppings Lane end'. So if it had been Forest fans,it would have been ok then.FFS ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 8986 Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Has anyone noticed scousers on radio saying ` they shouldn't have put us in the Leppings Lane end'. So if it had been Forest fans,it would have been ok then.FFS ! Thought the Scousers were put in that end because they didn't want the two sets of supporters to cross paths before and after the game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3976 Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 (edited) Has anyone noticed scousers on radio saying ` they shouldn't have put us in the Leppings Lane end'. So if it had been Forest fans,it would have been ok then.FFS ! Its a bad argument to use imo because even if it was true that Liverpool have a bigger fanbase so demand would be higher, it implies that people would turn up ticketless beacuse of that. Edited September 14, 2012 by NJS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3976 Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Thought the Scousers were put in that end because they didn't want the two sets of supporters to cross paths before and after the game? Supposedly traffic streams for the direction of arrival/departure iirc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3976 Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 A lot of people forget that the Semi Final at Hillsborough the year before was also played between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest with fans in the same ends, almost on the same dates. So what was different? The only two things that were different to my knowledge were the police opened the gates outside, and they didn't shut the door leading to the centre pen. Lots of things caused the disaster, but that one simple thing would've stopped it, someone locking the centre pen (they did that the year before). There was a different copper in charge though and they supposedly streamed the arrivals better - I think I read one "ordinary" copper's statement which was changed where he questioned why the previousl bloke had been replaced by someone who'd never been in charge of such a big game before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@yourservice 67 Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Unthinkable what would've happened if Beardsley had of scored when he hit the bar. I bet the rush in that tunnel would've been even worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 14576 Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 (edited) So the police or Labour had nothing to do with the riots of 2001 or 2005 then? Is ethnic tension only the government's fault when it's the Tories in power? As for the summer riots, I don't recall the 1980s riots being about thieving as much stuff as you can, nor do I recall them being made up of as many white rioters as ethnic ones. I also don't recall many 1980s rioters being shot point blank in the head while sitting on a tube train either, but if you insist that that kind of police state is less bad than the ones that supposedly exist under the Tories, who am I to argue. Didnt really say anything was less bad, I said the extreme measures brought in under Labour were exceptional measures in exceptional times. Google "sus laws" and how they affected UK citizens every day of their lives in the 70s and 80s and how they precipitated the riots in Toxteth and Brixton in the early 80s. Edited September 14, 2012 by PaddockLad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 14576 Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 My mistake. I got confused by your use of the words "not as much", and their normal English meaning of a graduated comparison. I don't need to Google SUS laws to know what they are, although you might need to as you don't seem to realise that they still existed throughout Labour's period in office. They're the party that didn't even repeal the anti-trade union laws FFS, so let's not pretend that the measures they introduce are only detrimental to the bad guys (as laughable as that idea is if you're applying it to stuff like RIPA). 2001 and 2005 (Bradford and Birmingham I presume?) had nowt to do with the police's misuse of sus laws and its a mistake on your part to bring them into a discussion about a "police state", as they were precipated by a. Bradford: shit being stirred up by the BNP and b. Birmingham: shit between the Asian and Afro Carribean communities. The point remains, major civil disturbances in this country were a lot more common in the 80s, mostly caused by police treating ethnic minorites like animals. The sus laws were supposed to be used for vagrants (thakyou google ) and were abandoned in the 80s, but were brought back in under a different name 5 months into the coalition's tenure, when they changed a Labour act (Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994) prohibiting stop and search on racial grounds. Less than a year later Tottenham exploded. Funny that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 14576 Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 I brought them into a discussion about how race riots supposedly only occur when tories are in power. And stop and search existed right through Labour's era. Tony Blair even reminded the police they existed, practically begging them to use it more to quell rising knife crime. You don't need Google for that, just a decent memory. As for Tottenham, how about you actually read some of the research done into it? They tend to be a little bit more rigorous in their analysis than whatever the hell it is you're going on. As I've tried to explain, the police had little or nothing to do with the riots you mentioned. They had lots to do with the riots in the early 80s, which is when I feel we lived in something much more approaching " a police state", with infiltration by police/army/secret service of picket lines and the trades union movement in general, I think the government in those days used the power of the state to crush dissent. Labour introduced extreme measures because of terrorrism, the Tories allowed the police to persecute ethnic minorities with the misuse of ancient, outdated laws. Thats the difference. I was a little bit naughty mentioning Tottenham, but it did start as a result of the police shooting a unarmed black man. To be fair to the Tories,and despite what you say, they did abolish (in name) the sus laws, but it took the worst civil disturbances since the 18th century to get that to happen. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1070552.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 5900 Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Any clues on who Rocky Road is then? Is this the in thing now. Make a fake account and start a row? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj 17 Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Any clues on who Rocky Road is then? Is this the in thing now. Make a fake account and start a row? Dynamite that post like Kid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 8986 Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 (edited) Dynamite that post like Kid. I thought you never have a pop at him? Fibber Edited September 15, 2012 by The Fish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 14576 Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 We're talking about a police state here, not some plod who ended up humping half a dozen different nubile young hippie chicks in a field huge difference between that and putting squaddies and special branch officers on entirely legitimate (at the time) picket lines don't you think?....although I do take your point about why it was felt that such a ludicrous operation was considered necessary in the first place. Labour became paranoid as the "war on terror" started to go tits up in Iraq and they lost the plot completely with some of the petty shit they introduced. But its nowhere near as draconian as some of the stuff that their predecessors in the 70s oversaw....my old man was interned for 3 nights sometime in the 70s for having the temerity to be working with a load of Irish lads at the time of an IRA atrocity...the police turned up at building sites all over the south of England and carted anyone with an Irish accent off for a few nights "interrorgation", which is a shocking abuse of police power, regardless of the small matter that my old man is Scottish! I came into this saying that you were wrong about this country being a police state and that things were a lot worse for huge numbers of UK citizens in the 70s and 80s and I stand by that. Huge numbers of ordinary people were en masse subject to stuff from those in power that would nowadays give Shami Chakribati a coronary iyam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 14030 Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/hillsborough-warning-of-coverup-was-ignored-by-judge-8142516.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 14030 Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 Also, you don't want to be prejudiced, but doesn't he just look like a cunt? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/did-sir-norman-bettison-try-to-smear-hillsborough-inquest-judge-8142451.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 14576 Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 (edited) You've got a serious case of the blinkers mate. 3 whole days? Thanks to Labour's proposed anti-terror measures, the cops could have locked up your dad for 90 days and 'interrogated' him. The Tories are the ones to thank for the fact that theoretically anything he said in that time should have been on a tape, although I'm not sure whether the police under Labour now have a legitimate way out of that too, if they think the person they're holding is a 'terrorist'. And what the fuck were the IRA if they weren't terrorists? When you compare the relative lethality of IRA attacks versus Al Qaeda ones on innocent Brits, when you compare the impact on the country of the 80s strikes versus the 90s/2000s demonstrations over the war or the environment or the cuts, then it's pretty clear which colour of party has a greater tendency to go batshit insane when deciding what idividual freedoms can be bypassed for the wider good. Which is all fair enough, but did the police arrest everyone with a Moslem sounding name after 9/11 and the attacks on London in 2005? Logistically impossible for sure, but am sure you see what I mean. It was illegal in the mid 70s to do so too, but would the police have got away with it in the 21st century if they had the means to do so?...we're talking about the police acting with the backing of the state here. There was enough evidence against the copper who whacked the bloke who proceeded to have a heart attack and die for a prosecution to be brought. So not completely backed up in later years it would seem, a line in the sand was drawn, let alone rounding innocents up for internment. Edited September 16, 2012 by PaddockLad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 14576 Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 Did the police arrest every Irish person in the UK after each IRA bombing? Of course they didn't. You're talking pure rubbish. No, but they did illegally intern hundreds. That sort of thing doesnt happen today, under any government. So thats a good thing. Unless you're suggesting it isnt, which does rather go against your "tories are the true defenders of civil liberties" schtick. Anyway, this has run its course. You may now accept that theres two sides to everything, but something tells me that may not be the case. Have a pleasant evening Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now