Fulsome apologies.

[Frances_iom]

It may be worth listening again (R4 1pm news) to the interview with the doctor who was present at the stadium, who in absence of any others took charge of the triage operation at his part of ground - now (or recently retired?) MoH for West ? Cumbria - he commented that he repeatedly made the same comments that have now been demonstrated by the published inquiry and that he and others present diagreed then with the police story - however he went on to make a significant comment that both then and in much of subsequent public life he saw that many in a position of power refused to take responsibilty for their actions - he even commented that this was a destructive influence on our democracy - he didn't sound a leftie given to knee jerks.

[Simon]

It may be worth listening again to the interview with the doctor ... he commented ... that both then and in much of subsequent public life he saw that many in a position of power refused to take responsibilty for their actions - he even commented that this was a destructive influence on our democracy - he didn't sound a leftie given to knee jerks.

I'm sure he didn't. Which is no doubt why his comments are taken seriously. And that, in turn, is because they are nothing like some of the the silly ones made upthread on here.

There are several ways of making a point, as you know. One is to do it in a silly, mindless way, and one is to do it in a thoughtful, reasoned way.

I'm more than happy to see different views on here, even views diametrically opposed to mine. By reading them one gains experience, one often learns, and one has the opportunity to see other sides of a discussion, other angles to an argument, other explanations and/or assessments of experiences. Sometimes, these are so powerfully expressed and so carefully and logically argued that one begins to change one's previous position.

But these other views are only valuable if they are thought through and based on at least some rational consideration, preferably taking into account alternative theories before arriving at a conclusion. It would be idle (and unnecessary) to give examples of comments that don't fit these criteria. But they are the ones I originally complained about.

[french frank]

MacKenzie claims that at the time he was reporting statements made by a senior local MP and a senior police officer, and he has a trail to those statements through a reliable press agency. I'm not going to rush to condemn the Sun until those claims are tested.

But that wasn't the argument. His apology was: "Today I offer my profuse apologies to the people of Liverpool for that headline.". The news story printed allegations as being what 'sources' had said. The Sun front page picked out the nastiest details of the accusations for straplines, and then put THE TRUTH above them, even though the reporter said they were unsubstantiated allegations. That was what caused the offence because The Sun's front page headlines are all that many people read. And that's what MacKenzie has now apologised for.

Police guilt, who briefed whom saying what, is another matter though, of course, without that briefing the story wouldn't have been written.

[jayne lee wilson]

I was shocked by the report. It does seem to me, though, that we are now being given an impression that the police were all evil and incompetent and the fans were all perfectly-behaved angels. I doubt if this is a true picture. (I live in the Liverpool area, too.)

That's disappointing - the upper ranks of the South Yorks Police were wilfully, determinedly, dishonest - in lying about what happened, they attempted to deceive the world about a tragedy at least partly of their own making, to protect their "reputation" and themselves from prosecution. "Evil" or "incompetence" don't come into it. (Don't forget how the Thatcher government used that same South Yorks force during the Miners' Strike - they felt immune, too well-favoured to be investigated or found out).

As AH so sharply observes, this deception, this cover-up, was allowed to stand for so long, as today's Guardian says, "because of the connivance of several pillars of an establishment that was - at that time - gripped by something approaching the mentality of class war". See the Guardian's editorial for 13/09, "Contempt and Cover-Up" - the most clear-headed summary I've yet seen.

As for Mackenzie - he was the EDITOR of The Sun, HE CHOSE the headline because he and others were ready to believe it. Just as Boris Johnson was in the Spectator in 2004. And now, how they grovel.

Too upset and tired for any more now...

[teamsaint]

Sadly, the endless dishonesty in this case suggests that those in power will stop at nothing to look after or further their interests.

I am pretty cynical about police and governments, but even I am amazed at the sheer depth of the corruption.

Incidentally, if anybody doubts who was to blame in this matter, there is one simple, compelling fact. By 1989 it was well known that for big games with high attendances, that a key component of safety was an initial point of entry, well away from the main turnstiles, so that the pressure of crowd numbers in restricted spaces didn't build up. The SYP failed to implement this. They knew they should have done this, yet they didn't.
Edit: its also a pity that the FA don't admit their own incompetence in this matter .

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Incidentally, if anybody doubts who was to blame in this matter, there is one simple, compelling fact. By 1989 it was well known that for big games with high attendances, that a key component of safety was an initial point of entry, well away from the main turnstiles, so that the pressure of crowd numbers in restricted spaces didn't build up. The SYP failed to implement this. They knew they should have done this, yet they didn't.

That's perfectly true, but there's more than one, simple, compelling fact in this matter - along the same lines as SYP's total failure there was also (amongst many other things) the public acceptance of large crush fences in front of the stands (complete with anti-climbing overhangs and barbed wire) put there as a measure to quell hooliganism.

I see Boris has now apogised for the Spectator's editorial repeating the police claims of crowd behaviour, so it seems many were taken in by the police claims. Well, you would be back then; the word of the police was taken (in the courts, for example) legally as nothing but the truth.

And then Sir Irvine Patnick (then MP for Hallam) is revealed as one of the sources quoted by MacKenzie.

Sir Irvine, 82, was named by the Hillsborough Independent Panel yesterday as one of the sources who briefed journalists that Liverpool fans were "drunk and aggressive" and forced entry into the football ground, contributing to the deadly crush.

The panel found the origin of The Sun's story, along with negative coverage in other newspapers, was Sheffield-based White's News Agency, which had been briefed by officers from South Yorkshire Police (SYP), a local Police Federation spokesman and Sir Irvine.

Their allegations were based on meetings with police officers and interviews with Sir Irvine and Paul Middup, the secretary of the South Yorkshire Police Federation.

The report states "Mr Patnick based his comments on a conversation with police officers on the evening of the disaster while the officers were in considerable distress."

So were the Police Federation 'in' on the deception?

[ahinton]

It's impossible not to make political capital out of this issue, because the whole point of the suppression was to make political capital out of it... and in that, they (newspapers, politicians, police, the whole of the establishment in fact)'ve been succeeding in hoodwinking the British public as a whole for a lot longer than 23 years.

It is indeed impossible, as you say, but my point here is to seek to distinguish between the mere party-political capital that emerges from left-against-right squabblings and the kind of political capital that doesn't even need to be made out of this kind of thing because the revelations themselves enable the matter to make its own political capital without any further assistance from those who comment upon it. I agree with the rest of what you write, but that doesn't make it come right or be acceptable and it doesn't help to provide a solution.

[ahinton]

#23 I thought somebody would soon come along and illustrate the point that I had made... thanks.

#24 Relax, AH. That there are some less than honest cops around - and some dodgy members of all areas of society for that matter - is a given. I have to work with many of them on a regular basis: most I can trust, some I can't.

It probably has always been like this, and probably will be for a long time yet. No worse here, in some ways, than elsewhere - and a sight better here than in some places, I can tell you! Different parts of the world have different ways of doing business, but there's generally some corruption somewhere along the line.

Overall, the civil service at the basic level in the UK is generally honest and reliable. But there has certainly been a CYA ethos creeping in more and more over the last, say 15 years, I'd say. Fault of lawyers, largely.

If I didn't know to whom I'm responding I'd be astonished at the relatively cavalier attitude expressed in what you've just written here. The suggestion that what we're now hearing more about is merely the revelation of the careless or even corrupt misdeeds of and handful of dishonest cops is beyond absurd in its determined head-in-the-sand stance. We are referring here not only to a handful of police officers but a lot of police officers, ambulance service personnel and possibly other who were involved in the incident itself, those who took a blind eye to what appears to have been a disproportionate emphasis upon security and anti-hooliganism and a comparable laxity in respect of health and safety in the design of the stands, etc., the members of the government of the day who were responsible for dealing with the outcome, those who arranged, presided over and participated in the various inquests and inquiries, the judiciary, the media and heaven alone knows who else and all this over a period of almost a quarter century in which massive cover-ups were not merely permitted but encouraged in order to protect the interests of any and all of those involved in the entire history of the matter. That's a whole lot of people, Simon - not just a handful of cops with dubious morals.

This is not about lefties and Guardian readers; it affects all of us in Britain, because we are all subject to the same laws, the same police, the same judiciary, the same parliament, the same media et al and, as the National Lottery cliché goes, "it could be you" - not by reason of attending a soccer match, of course, but for any reason whatsoever were you to have the misfortune to be in the firing line. Your evident complacency is therefore as unwelcome and unacceptable as the viewpoints that give rise to it. And there's nothing to "relax" about here!

[eighthobstruction]

I absolutely agree ahinton....

Lets hope some really strong changes are made....lets spend the money on making sure it does not happen again, that police investigations are much more transparent, and not continually delayed. Also that the IPCC get their act together, and legislation inacted that make it easier to investigate and interview the police at early stages of cases....and that the coroners too are scrutinized and advised more adequately....SO BEWARE of the current POLICING BILL which will take certain powers from IPCC and giving them back to the Police....

An aquaintances son is involved in a case at the moment where the case against him looks trumped up, or least a ridiculous prosecution....( he is no saint, but still deserves justice.) JUSTICE.

This programme from last night may help you....The Report R4....http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...ce_Complaints/

[teamsaint]

That's perfectly true, but there's more than one, simple, compelling fact in this matter - along the same lines as SYP's total failure there was also (amongst many other things) the public acceptance of large crush fences in front of the stands (complete with anti-climbing overhangs and barbed wire) put there as a measure to quell hooliganism.

I see Boris has now apogised for the Spectator's editorial repeating the police claims of crowd behaviour, so it seems many were taken in by the police claims. Well, you would be back then; the word of the police was taken (in the courts, for example) legally as nothing but the truth.

And then Sir Irvine Patnick (then MP for Hallam) is revealed as one of the sources quoted by MacKenzie.

So were the Police Federation 'in' on the deception?

Police deceptions apart, it IS a complicated business.
My point was just that this one thing alone is enough, IMO, to condemn the SYP.
I spent a lot of time at violent football matches in the 70's and 80"s,and have been in quite a few dangerous situations so I could talk a long time....but I won't.

[Simon]

... We are referring here not only to a handful of police officers but a lot of police officers, ambulance service personnel and possibly other who were involved in the incident itself, those who took a blind eye to what appears to have been a disproportionate emphasis upon security and anti-hooliganism and a comparable laxity in respect of health and safety in the design of the stands, etc., the members of the government of the day who were responsible for dealing with the outcome, those who arranged, presided over and participated in the various inquests and inquiries, the judiciary, the media and heaven alone knows who else and all this over a period of almost a quarter century in which massive cover-ups were not merely permitted but encouraged in order to protect the interests of any and all of those involved in the entire history of the matter. ...

Not precisely correct, but your point is in general valid. But I'm not disagreeing with it, anyway; merely wondering why all the surprise.

Top Tip: people in positions of responsibility are likely to try to cover up their mistakes if they can and if they think that will get away with it. One way of doing this is to divert blame elsewhere.

[french frank]

Top Tip: people in positions of responsibility are likely to try to cover up their mistakes if they can and if they think that will get away with it. One way of doing this is to divert blame elsewhere.

I'd put it a sssss-lightly different way: 'human beings in general are likely to try to cover up their mistakes if they can and if they think that will get away with it. One way of doing this is to divert blame elsewhere.'

One expects higher standards from those in positions of responsibility - or authority - because there are usually certain privileges that go with those positions.

[Simon]

My point was just that this one thing alone is enough, IMO, to condemn the SYP.
I spent a lot of time at violent football matches in the 70's and 80"s,and have been in quite a few dangerous situations so I could talk a long time....but I won't.

Can you justify that comment, ts? I would suggest that you can't condemn a whole force just because some of its members were dishonest. I was in Sheffield that afternoon; I have friends who were at the match, and I have friends who were/are in SYP and who do a superb job of general policing. So I've heard versions of what happenend from genuine witnesses.

But that apart, I'd be glad to hear of your views on the general behaviour of football fans at that period. I didn't go to matches, as I was usually too busy with other things.

[teamsaint]

Can you justify that comment, ts? I would suggest that you can't condemn a whole force just because some of its members were dishonest. I was in Sheffield that afternoon; I have friends who were at the match, and I have friends who were/are in SYP and who do a superb job of general policing. So I've heard versions of what happenend from genuine witnesses.

But that apart, I'd be glad to hear of your views on the general behaviour of football fans at that period. I didn't go to matches, as I was usually too busy with other things.

Whoever was running the SYP operation at that day failed to put in a basic safety system..that is, a barrier placed away from where the actual turnstiles are, perhaps 10 or 20 yards back. This enables an easy method of control, so that dangerous large crowds don't build up round the point of entry to the gound. By 1989, i had certainly been to a number of games where these were in place, and SYP MUST have known about , and should have used them. It would have been a huge help in controlling entry, and given them some vital extra time to deal with the developing crisis My condemnation on that aspect is of those in control on that day. The deceptions of course, are much wider.

In general, many matches at that time saw some pretty poor behaviour...most matches perhaps. Often this was not much more than a bit of macho posturing, but it could be frightening, and it could be dangerous. I have to say that by 1989 I think behaviour was improving..Heysel certainly affected people in that regard.

Poor behaviour had led to the need for fences etc, but the truth is that some basic precautions could help avoid most trouble, and avoid risks to supporters.The type of precaution that I suggested is one example.
The police "in action" were frequently not blameless...frankly, too many of them enjoyed a scrap with a few 16 year olds. Ask fans and certain forces come up time and again..the West Midlands especially and also the Met, for example.....I have seen it close up for myself.
Another, wider failing of the police services , is that they learned lessons far too slowly. There had been widespread trouble at grounds for at least 15 years before Hillsbrough....the question of who thought it a good idea to give liverpool that end of the ground still seems not to have been addressed...I was an unbelievably bad decision.....presumably the police advised the FA.

[johncorrigan]

Rather than tit-for-tattings various, might it be possible to return to the topic which is surely far too serious to become mired in such exchanges and descend to the level of "he said she said"?

There was a very moving account of the events from the ambulance driver, Tony Edwards, who drove the first ambulance onto the pitch that day. He was interviewed by Paddy O'Connell for Broadcasting House on Radio 4 this morning - it's about 14 minutes in to the programme and once again highlights the failures that took place that day.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01mnpzn