Seems it was Rooney
The Sun issued an apology "without reservation" in a full page opinion piece on 7 July, 2004, saying that it had "committed the most terrible mistake in its history". The Sun was responding to the intense criticism of Wayne Rooney, a Liverpool-born football star who still played in the city (for Everton, now for Manchester United) who had sold his life story to the newspaper. Rooney's actions had incensed Liverpudlians still angry with The Sun.
The Sun's apology was somewhat bullish, saying that the "campaign of hate" against Rooney was organised in part by the Liverpool Daily Post & Echo, owned by Trinity Mirror, who also own the Daily Mirror, arch-rivals of The Sun. Thus the apology actually served to anger some Liverpudlians further. The Liverpool Echo itself did not accept the apology, calling it "shabby" and "an attempt, once again, to exploit the Hillsborough dead."
This has been an excellent thread to read through other than your stupid little comments which I don't think anyone is really interested in reading about.
Sorry to detract from the main discussion here but someone had to tell him.
I think the isn't over the top, and the fans who lost their lives should be remembered.
What does annoy me though is that no one ever seems to mention the fault of the supporters in this. Of course the actions of the Police cannot be ignored, but neither can the actions of the supporters. So many turned up without tickets and were gathering at the Leppings Lane end trying to to get in, and this obviously was partly the reason why this shocking event happened. That seems to get swept under the carpet, and people just blame the police, but they were not wholey at fault.
And it was even mentioned in the Taylor Report as a contributing factor. The fact there were ticketless fans, doesnt suddenly exonerate the police from blame.
Is there a chance after what happen in Heysel effected the reaction after Hillsborough? I mean, do you think the police thought that their mistakes might get swept under the carpet after the reputation Liverpool fans gathered 5 years earlier? Same with the Sun, heard some dodgy reports, put 2 and 2 together and got 5. Don't want to seem offensive, as I understand both we slightly different situations and events.
You're joining the middle of a debate, with your first post claiming to know what's gone on before. If you're going to try that without even skimming the less than 2 pages see where it's up to, more fool you.
It's not even just this thread, i've literally never heard this debated without someone blaming the fans to some degree.
Unfortunately the fact that it could've been any set of fans also seems to escape most people.
IF the 'victums' get their wish and the 'truth' is told how they want it, will this then:
Open up a wave of financial claims to compensate the 'victums'? Or has that already been sorted out?
It may not have been but he has a good question, if they changed the cause of death to unlawful killing or whatever would it open up the compensation avenue?
i said it earlier and i will say it again, the game was a ticket match, people must have known that. It's the fans that turned up without a tickets fault no-one elses! not the police even though they opened the gate to allow fans in, they obviously didnt realise the stand was overpacked. and this JUSTICE thing is just nonsense, although if the police took responsibility i would love to never hear of Hillsborough again.
Were Fans Without Tickets a Major Factor in the Build-Up?
It has become a fact of football life that fans do turn up at all-ticket matches without tickets. It is not possible to give an accurate figure or even a reliable estimate of the number without tickets on 15 April. Police
estimates varied from about 200 to about 2,000. There were certainly frequent requests for tickets or "spares" during the hours before the build-up. Many of those warned off by the police were seen to return to the area.
Some were hanging about on the bridge. Again, however, the police witnesses who most impressed me did not consider the number of ticketless fans to be inordinately large. This accords with two other sources of evidence.
First, there was a wide range of witnesses who observed inside the ground that the Liverpool end was at a late stage well below capacity save for pens 3 and 4. The north stand still had many empty seats and the wing pens were sparse. The match being a sell-out, there were clearly many ticket holders to come and they could account for the large crowd still outside the turnstiles. Had the Liverpool accommodation been full by 2.40 pm, one could have inferred that most or much of the large crowd outside lacked tickets.
Secondly, such figures as are available from the Club's electronic monitoring system and from analyses by the HSE suggest that no great number entered without tickets. They show that the number who passed through turnstiles A to G plus those who entered through gate C roughly equalled the terrace capacity figure of 10,100 for which tickets had been sold. The Club's record showed 7,038 passed through turnstiles A to G.
However, the counting mechanism on turnstile G was defective, so the HSE did a study using the video film and projecting figures from the other turnstiles. This gave an assessment of 7,494, with a maximum of 7,644 passing through A to G. Again, using the video, the HSE assessed the number who entered the ground whilst gate C was open at 2,240 with a maximum of 2,480. Accordingly, the HSE's best estimate of the total entering through gate C and turnstiles A to G was 9,734 with a maximum of 10,124.1 recognise that these can only be rough checks because, for example, some with terrace tickets were allowed through turnstiles 1 to 16 and there would be other similar factors which have not formed part of the assessment. Nevertheless, the figures do
suggest that there was not a very significant body of ticketless fans in the crowd which built up.
i'm not going to apoligise, and i never will whatever evidence you give me
Nothing I could post in here which hasn't already been said by the more sane posters.
What does annoy me about Hillsborough is the fact that terracing is no longer allowed in top flight football due to the deaths of those people. Standing was not the issue, overcrowding was. With the standards we have today it would never happen again yet anytime the issue is brought up it seems to get beaten down by the families who lost someone that day & various other people involved. There is a certain hypocrisy amongst Liverpool fans too. I mean you know they're all there chanting "Justice for the 96" etc but you can bet your last quid that a number of them have been to games since it happened & tried jibbing in etc.
I cannot complain about the media overkill really considering the coverage Munich got last year which also grew tiresome.
Hillsborough was a kind of blessing really as it brought about major change in the way football matches were organised & grounds were made a lot safer. However it's also holding it back now I feel by not allowing standing to be reintroduced despite it not being one of the major contributing factors that day.
Edit: Not really sure blessing is the right word but you get the drift.
Last edited by Coldberg; 16-04-2009 at 18:55.
haha, how can i be a moron?? when i happen to go to a private school
Of course, having a rich dad excludes you from being a moron
The fact you go to a private school actualy increases the chance of you being a moron tbh.
hang on my dad aint rich, im just smart enough to get a grant to go there and i know im not a moron as im on for A*'s and A's for GCSE
And tbh i didnt know much about Hillsborough until one of our teachers was on about before we broke up and most of my class agreed that it was the fans fault
Being intellectually smart does not exclude you from being a moron
Prove that fans without tickets were the cause, or shut up and post elsewhere. Because no matter what evidence is posted you refuse to appologise for posting crap, and it seems like crap you cant even support you idiot.
So your taking all your info from what your teacher has said?
So that means your right?
my teacher is a liverpool fan who was blaming it on the police and even liverpool fans in my class said that it was the fans fault
Age doesn't come into it, you shouldn't be treated differently just because you're 14
Just curious but if your teacher told you that Hitler was actually correct & that all Jews were evil & deserved to die would you agree along with the rest of your class?
Here's a hint, your teacher is a seemingly biased ******.
well why are old people treated differently to me (65 and over bascially)
This is brilliant, people in your class who weren't even born when the event occured all agreed it was the fans fault.
So what's so special about this teacher and your class that they know more about what went on at Hillsborough than Lord Justice Taylor?
tbh im just going to ignore you all and say i am glad this event happened and them scousers died!
You realise you're gonna get about 20 reports for that you nasty little git?
nelly and jimmy ret*rded or just idiots?
Can we just get back to the conversation now?
You could see it coming tbh, he was building up to it.
jimmyriddle is David Duckinfield's son, and I claim my fiver.
**** me .
all threads like these should just be banned on forums as it nearly always ends up with idiots who are about 12 thinking they're rocky balboa behind a computer screen.
First time i've ever reported a post/user on here.
I know others probably have too, but my god what an idiot.
I did .
No, I don't think it was OTT. It was one of the worst disasters in UK football history, it was the 20th anniversary, 96 people went to a football match and didn't come back thanks to the criminal negligence of the police and no one has ever taken the blame.
Why should a whole community just take it and shut up about it anyway?
I reported him as soon as I saw it, s you might have guessed from my comment
Just to expand on that, if you're interested in the causes of Hillsborough, you want the interim. The final was more about what to do in the future to make football safer. That was one of the criticisms of the report, that calling them interim and final meant far more credence and attention was given to the second one, when really they were two separate reports looking at different aspects.
Jimmy got a week off for his troubles. And he should be glad it was just a week.
When he returns, am I allowed to say that I'd be glad for him and all his family to die?
the little ****
He shouldn't be allowed back at all.
There's no excuse for it.
forum rules always seemed to have been a bit dodgy as to what does or does not constitute a permaban..
Should have been banned forever tbh.
Ahem... he's erm, 14.
how can that be a one week ban?
that is a ****ing disgrace. this place really is a shambles when a post like that gets a one week ban.
don't think it was right that some of the speekers at the service were having a dig at people like the guy who started slagging off the guy who is head of yorkshire police. Yes it was a terrible accident but it was an accident. There were mistakes made by the police but their was also mistakes made by the liverpool fans who turned up without tickets. The club should have told fans without tickts to stay away from the stadium and area surrounding. The service should just be left as a memory to the people who died and not have people trying to pin all responsability on people when it was clearly an accidental death like the original report found
Anyway back to the debate at hand please
Little ******* should get 96 day ban tbh.
for anyone interested, purefun has changed the ban to a permanent ban.
What he said was totally out of order but I don't see why all those who are insulting him aren't receiving infractions too. There really needs to be a sticky of some kind drawn up to show what bannable offences are & stuff because at the minute it's a total joke. I mean the other month Serpico called people '*****' but he said it's okay because they aren't registered here. Using that logic what jimmyriddle posted was totally fine as the people he insulted aren't registered on this forum.
Of course you could give the reason for the infraction as 'trolling' but then that would involve infracting a load of other posters
I still agree with what you said earlier Chops.
He posted it to get a reaction, he did. People post stuff to get a reaction all the time without penalty.
It would be nice if the reaction could cease now too.
It seems that the design of the ground was largely at fault, as well. They seemed to be well past their time. One of the good things to come from this disaster was bringing English grounds up to scratch.a) you'd not have had the level of crushing outside
To be fair, at the time I'd say they thought that opening the gates would have been the best option.b) the decision to open the gate without any thought for the consequences.
At a league deciding match at Cork City's home ground back in 2005, there was about 10,000 in the ground and I read that an extra 500 ticketless Derry fans (away side) were let in, as the police felt it would be better to have them inside rather than roaming the streets of Cork. Presumably, it was similar circumstances with Hillsborough.
Perhaps they were simply riding their luck, then? Reading the posts from this thread, a lot of people are saying that it could have easily been any given game, but it was this one by chance.Like they had the pervious year when the two same teams met at the same ground? This isn't an issue of hindsight. It's an issue that the match commander (who was new to the job) decided to ignore the plans that had been in place for previous games and do his own thing...
This report is about overcrowding in the terraces at a GAA match in Cork. The gates were opened and fans allowed to sit along the perimetre of the pitch. Perhaps, any other day, the Gardaí would have chosen to leave the gates shut and a crush would have ensued. Of course, if there ever were deaths due to this in Páirc Uí Chaoimh (the stadium in the above link) people would say why this has never happened, when, in fact, it has.
Accidents are generally very avoidable. When they happen, we can't undo them, unforunately. The best thing we can do is learn from them and make sure they never happen again.Those mistakes go way beyond being anything that could be dismissed as 'one of those things' – they were not unavoidable.
Did the policeman not take full responsibility for opening the gate?And that’s just covering the issues in the direct run up to the incident. The lies, cover-ups, excuses and buck passing that started at about 3pm on that day has continued for 20 years. Nobody has ever been held accountable – nobody has officially taken the blame. Nobody lost a penny of their wages or a day’s liberty for the horrendous mistakes made that day.
Well, England have some of the safest grounds in the world, so seemingly, lessons have been learned.Harder to learn from events when the police try to cover up what actually happened, wouldn't you say?
Similarly, in my above link, it was people arriving close to the throw-in (GAA's kick-off) that caused such trouble and further confusion to police - I'm not blaming the fans, by the way, they can arrive whenever they please. Lack of security, however, gave the exisiting stewards and Gardaí a harder job. The main difference between Hillsborough and Páirc Uí Chaoimh was that the latter had no deaths. It could easily have been the case, though, just like many other football matches in England at the time.The crush was caused because they weren't getting people inside the ground quick enough as kick off approached. Rather than opening the gate, they simply needed to delay the kick off and announce that fact. Plus of course the greater space outside makes a crush easier to avoid and easier to police people.
Eye witness reports can be misleading. I remember reading an article on Hillsborough, where the writer said, as he was drifting into unconciousness, that he mouthed "Help" to a policeman, who just nodded his head and smiled. Do you really think that if the cop knew what was really happening, he would have done that?It doesn't have to be planned to not be an accident. If people fail in their basic duty of care by the actions they take (or fail to take), that's negligence if people in their position could reasonably be expected to have taken those actions, which appears to be the case for at least some of the decisions taken on that day.
Again, were they? To echo the sentimenets of a few people on hear, no casualties doesn't mean safety.It's all very well claiming hindsight, but plenty of high profile matches had been held safely despite similar circumstances occuring.
There's not a lot I can say to that, but any other day, things could have panned out differently. Then, perhaps England would still be ripe with unsafe grounds and a substandard amount of security. Unfortunately, it usually takes a tragedy for people to sit up and take notice.That's not to say it's all Duckenfields fault, but there's little doubt that his actions both contributed to the disaster, and that they were not consistent with what could be expected of an officer of his position and rank.
Last edited by Paz-CCFC; 16-04-2009 at 20:57.
Let me preface this so it's not interpreted the wrong way. Any time someone dies from negligence at a sporting event meant for entertainment, it is terribly sad. When it is nearly a hundred it certainly is a depressing tragedy, all the more so when it is preventable.
But perhaps it's because Hillsborough occurred before my time or on soil foreign to me, but doesn't the coverage devoted to this tragedy above and beyond similar, more recent fan disasters reek a little of ethnocentric tendencies? Just two weeks ago at a full international game in the Ivory Coast, 19 people were crushed to death when the fans pressed forward after police fired tear gas into the crowd and 132 injured. Shouldn't there be more of an outcry about that event if people truly are still sensitive to disasters such as Hillsborough?
Granted, this isn't meant to call out anyone in particular because it seems to be a weakness in human nature. Just a comment on which events grab our attention and embed themselves in our memories.
Last edited by Ceching You Out; 16-04-2009 at 21:02.
I know this hasn't personally happened to me but while we were watching the memorial my dad said about some of the big matches he'd been to where the terrace stands hand been rocking about from the amount of fans moving about in them.It's all very well claiming hindsight, but plenty of high profile matches had been held safely despite similar circumstances occuring.
I remember I was sitting at home when the disaster happened and from what I recall (which I admit may be different to what really happened), I recall seeing live on TV. I was numb - I just couldn't believe what I was seeing. Even now part of me refuses to believe it happened when I see a repeat of the pictures on TV.
Wouldn't argue that certain of the circumstances could have led to problems and even deaths in another time and another place. The point is that that can still be true without absolving the police for the scale of this particular one. Sorry to refer to the Taylor report again, but it's very clear on the point that for all the inherent problems that needed fixing (and thankfully the majority were for once), the huge proportion of the blame for Hillsborough specifically fell on the policing on that day.
Happens all too frequently in Africa still. From the article:
Riots and crushes are common at African football stadiums, which are frequently overcrowded. Last September 11 people were killed in a stadium riot in the Democratic Republic of Congo and in June eight people died in a crush in Liberia. Fifa instigated a programme of inspections across Africa before the 2010 World Cup qualifiers and Abidjan's stadium had been passed as safe for international matches.
something that hasnt really been mentioned so far is the events 5 years earlier at Heysel, If the events at Hillsbourough are down to the Polices organistion and activities - or lack of acticity ( which i think its largely accepted they are ) I think the 39 deaths at Heysel are at the very least partially the fault of the fans.
Because of this, could this be one of the reasons that the press and Police were so happy to believe that it could have been the fault of the Liverpool supporters and not the Police at the game?
For those who did not experience it live, I still agree, but then your statement forces one closer to acknowledging what about this disaster has an affect on you.
Is it simply the death of spectators at a sporting event? Probably not when similar events elsewhere don't cause the same reaction.
Is it the death of spectators, whom you could imagine being, at a sporting event?
Of course there are a nearly infinite number of options. Personally, I think the second case describes some of the people caught up in sensationalism around this disaster. It makes some of the showings of emotions for this disaster a bit more selfish and cheapens the genuine grief.
While that's a possibility on the part of the press, it's not an excuse, as they have a duty to have sources to back up their allegations. In the case of the police, they didn't believe it was the fans, they deliberately covered up the truth to attempt to deflect blame away from themselves.
It works on the same principal for the general public in terms of large scale disasters. If you reacted with the same level of emotion to merely numbers of deaths no matter where in the world, what happened etc, you couldn't function. So people develop their own "armour", and naturally the things that affect people more are those that are closer to home in some way.