Hillsborough

taniwharugby

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Richie8-7" data-cid="577464" data-time="1462525511">
<div>
What? Is that Scouser English?
 
It backs up the point that it was Liverpool fans.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
fuck mate, I think you are drunk! 
 
Back to your Miami Wine cooler!

alexnicholas

As someone who grew up in England in the 70s and 80s my recollections are that there was definitely a hooligan problem but Liverpool fans were pretty decent compared to other fans. You have to remember the Heysel tragedy was caused by stuffing the fans into an ill-equipped stadium.

Catogrande

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Richie8-7" data-cid="577459" data-time="1462525301">
<div>
Are you actually serious?
 
Do you know why English clubs were banned from Europe? Hint: Liverpool
</div>
</blockquote>
Whilst that is undeniably true, I would have thought that everything that has come out of the Hillsborough tragedy would give you pause for thought before following the party line about blame. To save you having to go back and read the relevant point in my post I will copy it here:-
 
The Heysel disaster was a stand out of course but there are two elements in that that need to be taken into account. Firstly most of Liverpool's hooligan issues were on away trips in Europe. The pattern you allude to was mostly opportunistic travelling hooligans that were not usually evident away from such games. Secondly although it was the Liverpool fans that pulled down the fences at Heysel, this was because they were getting crushed in a very small area where too many had been crammed in. The tearing down of the fences triggered the fighting between the fans which in turn led to a wall collapsing in the dilapidated stadium. Whilst it is true to say the behaviour of the fans contributed to the tragedy the common link between here and Hillsborough is two-fold. A poorly maintained, out of date stadium and poor crowd control/policing.
 
The Liverpool fans did not go on an orgy of violence killing Italian fans. A wall in a substandard, dilapidated stadium collapsed killing those fans. For sure the fighting between the fans caused the wall to fall, but the fighting itself was caused in the main by the poor crowd control, cramming the Liverpool supporters into an area far too small for the numbers.
 
Just take a moment to think about this. It is the European Cup Final. The biggest game of the year for European club soccer. The choice of stadium and the method of policing of the crowd ought to match the sheer scale of the game. It did not go anywhere near that. No real blame and certainly no culpability was laid at the door of EUEFA, all that happened was that ever so quietly they had a good look at stadia suitability and policing. Meanwhile, lay the blame demonstrably at a conveniently easy target which is partly credible.
 
Please feel free to refute my views, I'll be happy to hear something new on this subject.

Catogrande

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="alexnicholas" data-cid="577496" data-time="1462529833">
<div>
As someone who grew up in England in the 70s and 80s my recollections are that there was definitely a hooligan problem but Liverpool fans were pretty decent compared to other fans. You have to remember the Heysel tragedy was caused by stuffing the fans into an ill-equipped stadium. 
</div>
</blockquote>
What he said.

Cookie

Yes. The teams with bad reps for hooliganism at the time were the likes of Milwall, West Ham, Leeds and Chelsea. Not Liverpool. 
As mentioned by Cato may stadia were ill equipped at the time and given that fans were generally treated like animals (and often behaved that way) it was a tragedy waiting to happen. 
Then there was the appalling cover up afterwards. I think there was a general dislike of Liverpool by the Sun, the police and especially government at the time - who all colluded in the cluster-fuck that was to follow. If the tragedy had happened in London I think we would have got to the truth a lot sooner.

rotated

Genuine question - was it established if there was a rush of patrons without tickets that entered the ground and to what degree?

da_grubster

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Richie8-7" data-cid="577382" data-time="1462514426">Why do you think they are unrelated? Police reacted to a pattern of behaviour which was particularly poor from one football club. 
 
The cover ups and lies in the aftermatch by the police are unforgivable. They deserve to be vilified. But saying they are unrelated events is extremely ignorant. </blockquote>
 
You are talking about a game that happened in 1985 as opposed to a game that happened in 1989, in different countries. How are they related? 
Heysel will always be the lowest point for LFC, but every club suffered with violence at this time. Not just Liverpool. In fact, Liverpool wasn't renowned for hooloiganism. 
Justice for Heysel happened with a number of people imprisoned.

da_grubster

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Richie8-7" data-cid="577447" data-time="1462524217">I understand the delusion of people who buy into the typical Liverpool, woe is me narrative. Talk to the supporters OF ANY OTHER CLUB who are older than 40, and you'll hear exactly what I'm telling you.</blockquote>
 
This delusion you talk about has affected you in the exact opposite way. Couldn't give two shits if you hate Liverpool. Most people that do are generally United fans. 
You trolling effort on the back of this week is very poor. Your ignorant views are regurgitated bullshit

Crucial

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="rotated" data-cid="577525" data-time="1462551027">Genuine question - was it established if there was a rush of patrons without tickets that entered the ground and to what degree?</blockquote>
 
Just ignore that red herring. It would only be relevant if ALL the fans that rushed in were without tickets and even then it doesn't really matter unless you are implying that the crush outside was a deliberate tactic to force that gates to open. 
I have kept away from commenting again here because of the obvious situation where my original comment having some small feeling still of the fans contributing to what went down being taken in every way except how I intended it. 
I do want to dis- associate my views with those of Richie. 
As I explained, my view was based on my experiences at the time and just how frightening crowd behaviour was in those days. I am not a football fan and have no allegiance to any team. I don't really care whether the fans were from Liverpool or Mars. 
My views are obviously at odds to those of others, and probably the best example is the post that says that the fans at Heysel weren't responsible for the fighting, the stadia/ crowd control was. 
I understand where that view comes from but to me a stadia doesn't make humans fight it only triggers the bad behaviour. Just as poor gate strategy doesn't make people push and shove like cornered animals but it does create the right environment for that to happen. 
My original "feeling" still stands that mob like behaviour (which was quite normal in those times at football games) was an undeniable part of what happened and in some small part contributed. 
PS: this comment applies to those outside the ground NOT the victims inside.

rotated

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crucial" data-cid="577534" data-time="1462566538">
<div>
Just ignore that red herring. It would only be relevant if ALL the fans that rushed in were without tickets and even then it doesn't really matter unless you are implying that the crush outside was a deliberate tactic to force that gates to open.
</div>
</blockquote>
I'm not implying anything. I genuinely want to know - I've tried searching. But it is generally mentioned that the police primarily blamed a rush on the gates for the the disaster - and subsequently failings by them seemed to play more of a factor. But I'm not sure whether that means no unticketed patrons rushed (and the police were lying), or they did but all the other factors got the focus.
 
I would think if you entered that area without a ticket you certainly contributed to what occurred, no?

MN5

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Cookie" data-cid="577510" data-time="1462533091">
<div>
Yes. The teams with bad reps for hooliganism at the time were the likes of Milwall, West Ham, Leeds and Chelsea. Not Liverpool. 
As mentioned by Cato may stadia were ill equipped at the time and given that fans were generally treated like animals (and often behaved that way) it was a tragedy waiting to happen. 
Then there was the appalling cover up afterwards. I think there was a general dislike of Liverpool by the Sun, the police and especially government at the time - who all colluded in the cluster-fuck that was to follow. If the tragedy had happened in London I think we would have got to the truth a lot sooner.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
A mate of mine is from Newcastle and being an ex boxer and scrapper in general said all the shit that went down before, during and after games was the main reason so many people got into hooliganism, many of them weren't football fans on any level but just went along to drink and fight. It's not so much the case nowadays with all the king hits and filming beatings on smartphones but kiwis back then had much more of a code of conduct in terms of a scrap but in Britain glass bottles, knives, bricks or whatever were fair game. I'd imagine being a cafÃ© owner in France or Germany during that period when the various "firms' invaded the country to "support" their team would have been absolutely nightmarish. I can't think of more of a truism than Rugby being the thugs game played by Gentlemen whereas football is the Gentlemans game played by thugs....
 
Slightly off topic but I guess the point I'm making is that for outsiders it would have been so easy to blame this whole thing on the hooligan element.

gt12

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="rotated" data-cid="577538" data-time="1462569459">I'm not implying anything. I genuinely want to know - I've tried searching. But it is generally mentioned that the police primarily blamed a rush on the gates for the the disaster - and subsequently failings by them seemed to play more of a factor. But I'm not sure whether that means no unticketed patrons rushed (and the police were lying), or they did but all the other factors got the focus. 
I would think if you entered that area without a ticket you certainly contributed to what occurred, no?</blockquote>
 
Have you seen <a class="bbc_url" href="http://espn.go.com/30for30/film?page=hillsborough">http://espn.go.com/30for30/film?page=hillsborough</a> 
Rotated? 
I'm pretty sure it devotes plenty of time to the gate and discusses the problems that influenced the rush (been a while since I've seen it though, so might need to watch again). 
I'm pretty sure it's on YouTube and definitely solar movie or other such sites.

Catogrande

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crucial" data-cid="577534" data-time="1462566538">
<div>
Just ignore that red herring. It would only be relevant if ALL the fans that rushed in were without tickets and even then it doesn't really matter unless you are implying that the crush outside was a deliberate tactic to force that gates to open. 
I have kept away from commenting again here because of the obvious situation where my original comment having some small feeling still of the fans contributing to what went down being taken in every way except how I intended it. 
I do want to dis- associate my views with those of Richie. 
As I explained, my view was based on my experiences at the time and just how frightening crowd behaviour was in those days. I am not a football fan and have no allegiance to any team. I don't really care whether the fans were from Liverpool or Mars. 
My views are obviously at odds to those of others, and probably the best example is the post that says that the fans at Heysel weren't responsible for the fighting, the stadia/ crowd control was. 
I understand where that view comes from but to me a stadia doesn't make humans fight it only triggers the bad behaviour. Just as poor gate strategy doesn't make people push and shove like cornered animals but it does create the right environment for that to happen. 
My original "feeling" still stands that mob like behaviour (which was quite normal in those times at football games) was an undeniable part of what happened and in some small part contributed. 
PS: this comment applies to those outside the ground NOT the victims inside.
</div>
</blockquote>
Good post mate. I see the point you're making (in bold), the view re Heysel though is that the need for the Liverpool fans to tear down the fencing to get out of the sardine can they were shunted into triggered the fighting. Was that the Italian fans trying to stop them or fearing a hostile invasion by the Liverpool fans? I don't know and this is my point. Yes there was fighting between the two sets of fans, yes this was triggered by the Liverpool fans tearing down the fences but the how and why of the fighting starting is far from clear. Poor behaviour or fear? Intent or reaction? No-one knows but what we do know is that without the situation forced upon the Liverpool supporters this situation was a lot less likely to occur.

Rancid Schnitzel

Didn't they keep playing even after the stand collapsed? Insane.

da_grubster

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="577615" data-time="1462606047">Didn't they keep playing even after the stand collapsed? Insane.</blockquote>
 
Yes the game went ahead. Jive won 1-0 with a Michael platini penalty. 
It is crazy. 
There is a lot of fan accounts on the web of what happened in Heysel. Mainly Liverpool fans. Fascinating but grim reading

da_grubster

Rancid, sorry this all happened before the game started. 
both captains had to appeal to their sets of fans to stop fighting. 
39 dead and 600 injured. 
And still the game went ahead. I believe kickoff was after 9pm. 
14 people were convicted of manslaughter as well as 3 Belgian officials. 
Dark days

Rancid Schnitzel

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="da_grubster" data-cid="577788" data-time="1462612858">
Rancid, sorry this all happened before the game started. 
both captains had to appeal to their sets of fans to stop fighting. 
39 dead and 600 injured. 
And still the game went ahead. I believe kickoff was after 9pm. 
14 people were convicted of manslaughter as well as 3 Belgian officials. 
Dark days</blockquote>
 
Jesus. 
How the hell could they play the game after something like that? Imagine being a player and trying to concentrate with dozens of dead and dying people just metres away. Fark me.

SidBarret

I would hate to come down on the same side of the debate, but...
 
My knowledge of the time in English football is solely based on what I've read, so I might be mistaken, but to ignore the culture around football at the time would disingenuous. As much as the original inquest erred in limiting the itself to event up to 15:15 (?), I feel people erring by limited their comments to event of that day (15 April?).
 
Reading the reports of what happened, it seems that the police was set up to avoid another Heysel and failed to deal with what was actually happening. 
 
Hell even the stadium was set up that way. Without the fencing and the pens the tragedy would never have occurred. 
 
So what does that mean about the culpability of the fans at the stadium (or Liverpool fans for that matter)? Nothing really but football fans as group should have taken a step back and asked themselves about what supporting your team has become. Penned in, segregated from opposing fans and herded around to avoid "trouble" is a normal idea of a good time.

ACT Crusader

Hey sidbarrett, welcome back mate.

SidBarret

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="ACT Crusader" data-cid="577843" data-time="1462627133">
<div>
Hey sidbarrett, welcome back mate.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
 
Thanks mate
 
Never really left, was just quietly sitting in the corner of the virtual pub, aka lurking.
 
 
 
One more thing to on the topic - for all those people talking about the crowed pushing forward and therefor being to blame - consider the following, you have 3000 people all "pushing" forward with a 100 newton worth of force. Now a hundred newton sounds a big number it really isn't (about 10kg of force). If one person pushes with that force you would hardly notice it, but multiplying it with 3000 you suddenly get 30 tons pressing again the front barrier - you can also add the force of the crowed simply trying to keep their balance on the terrace. But only taking the 30 ton spread over 30 meters you end up with 1 ton per meter of fencing. That is like parking a small car on each of the people on the front of the crowd. Big crowds are scary things.

The Silver Fern

Hillsborough