• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Football Thread 2012/13 |OT4| Welcome Sweet and Tender Hooligan

Status
Not open for further replies.

Salazar

Member
Lz5kK.png

:/
 
Giroud looks like a default player in FIFA 13. Quite disappointing.

The paper reported at the time that some fans at the FA Cup semi-final, where 96 Liverpool fans were crushed to death, pickpocketed the dead and urinated on police.

Speechless
 

dc89

Member
The iPhone 5 looks surprisingly average.

I hope it has some wow factors otherwise I might look elsewhere next time my contract is up.
 

Choc

Banned
No Shit they are revealing an IPhone 5 today? How unexpected :p

The shock is that its leaked onto the apple site early


Steve Jobs owuld have imploded if that happened in his reign

Tim cook is no steve jobs

is the option to set time of day including under lights in exhibition a new option?
 
Well, fair enough. I completely agree with your second comment and by referring to Hillsborough as an "ancient stadium" I was talking more about the general state of how fans across the country were treated at football matches. Looking back with today's standards in mind, it looks absolutely awful, but in its day, I don't suppose Hillsborough was abnormal at all. And as you said, it could easily have happened anywhere, anytime.

And I completely agree that the relevant government/regulatory officials are, in my mind at least, highly culpable along with the police.

And I suppose this isn't about the causes anymore, in that regard Hillsborough left a lasting legacy of bringing stands up to scratch to ensure that something like it never happened again, and the police have long been considered to be the main cause of the tragedy through their incompetence. The debate now is more surrounding the cover up. The most shocking thing today was the 164 significantly altered statements, but realistically, surely there is almost zero chance of any convictions brought against any individual police officers.

David Duckenfield should be re-tried and thrown away for the rest of his miserable little life for a start. He was the man in charge of the whole game. He ordered the gate to be opened. He failed to instruct officers to assist the dying or to allow ambulances onto the pitch. He failed to ensure there were stewards to direct fans away from the tunnel of death leading into the central pens. He failed to delay the kick-off time which could have averted this whole disaster. He, and he alone, is the man most responsible for the deaths of 96 innocent people. May his God have mercy on him.
 
I've noticed some comments by supporters of a certain rival club that are, to say the least, unsympathetic to the disaster - labelling Liverpool fans (or those fans then) with some unkind words. Why? Is there something that happened between these sets of fans back then, or are these trolls?
 

herod

Member
This just isn't true at all. Hillsborough hosted netural cup ties before (and since) 1989 because it was one of the best of a bad bunch of stadiums in the country at that time. The stadium coped with huge crowds before and after 1989, and since football was first played at Hillsborough in 1899 the day of the disaster is the only event where anyone has died at the ground watching football.

From the BBC live coverage: 'The report states a similar "near disaster" event could have happen at Hillsborough in 1981, and subsequent ground modifications actually increased dangers. There were further problems in 1987 and 1988. Ultimately, the risks were known and tragedy was forseeable'.

edit: found this interesting link re: 1981 http://thehillsboroughdisasterdocumentary.com/2011/11/16/hillsborough-1981-disaster-narrowly-avoided/
 

PaulLFC

Member
Can someone surmise the interesting points about this?
- The Hillsborough Independent Panel's report has been released today, concluding that the fans were in no way to blame for what happened at Hillsborough - it was the failure of the authorities.
- It was also revealed that there was an orchestrated cover up in order to deflect blame from the authorities on to the fans.
- Multiple police statements altered, the majority of those to remove anything that portrayed the police in a negative light. "The panel found that 164 police statements were significantly amended and 116 explicitly removed negative comments about the policing operation, including its lack of leadership"
- The same happened with statements from the ambulance service.
- The police conducted blood alcohol level tests on all victims, including children.
- Survivors receiving treatment in hospital were tested for alcohol without their knowledge or consent.
- The S*n "newspaper" was given a statement from a Sheffield news agency, who had been fed lies about the events of the day by South Yorkshire Police.
- The report found evidence that some of those who died could have been saved had they received proper care in the aftermath of the tragedy.
- In total, 41 people showed signs that they were still alive beyond the 3:15 "cut off point", and could potentially have been saved with proper care. Whether they would have survived or not is not known.
- The coroner at the previous inquest questioned the need for post mortems on the fans who died, as he believed the cause of death was the same for everyone. This is illegal.
- David Cameron has apologised on behalf of the government and the state for the injustice that the families have suffered.
- Many MPs in the House of Commons have called for those who are found to have broken the law during or since the disaster should have criminal charges brought against them, although this is for local authorities to decide, apparently.

The main outcome today is that it looks like finally, the families are close to the justice they have campaigned for for 23 years, and that justice is not a moment too soon. This systematic cover up should never have happened, and I can only hope those who orchestrated and facilitated it can be brought to justice.
 

WJD

Member
I've noticed some comments by supporters of a certain rival club that are, to say the least, unsympathetic to the disaster - labelling Liverpool fans (or those fans then) with some unkind words. Why? Is there something that happened between these sets of fans back then, or are these trolls?

What exactly are you trying to instigate here?
 

Choc

Banned
No one answered my q's


compo is going to be a massive payout right to families based on pain and suffering?


surely?
 

qindarka

Banned
I've noticed some comments by supporters of a certain rival club that are, to say the least, unsympathetic to the disaster - labelling Liverpool fans (or those fans then) with some unkind words. Why? Is there something that happened between these sets of fans back then, or are these trolls?

It isn't Chelsea is it. I have a sinking feeling that it might be.
 

Arnie

Member
I've noticed some comments by supporters of a certain rival club that are, to say the least, unsympathetic to the disaster - labelling Liverpool fans (or those fans then) with some unkind words. Why? Is there something that happened between these sets of fans back then, or are these trolls?
Every club has a vocal minority of idiots.
 
Didn't Chelsea fans boo the hillsborough minutes silence at the FA Cup final?

Some did. There's idiotic and disrespectful fans in every club.

It would be silly to try and brand one particular set of supporters when, I bet, you'd easily find someone from every club deciding to do a Frankie Boyle and tell a joke about Hillsborough.
 

Shadders

Member
No one answered my q's


compo is going to be a massive payout right to families based on pain and suffering?


surely?

Hadn't considered that, you'd have to imagine it would be several hundred thousand. There'd be payouts for Police Negligence leading to death, payouts for the pain and suffering caused by the cover up, payouts for the libellous stories in The S*n..

Obviously it does nothing to ease the pain of losing a loved one followed by a 23 years of heartache brought on by the lies of self-serving pricks, but at least it's something.
 

Bumhead

Banned
From the BBC live coverage: 'The report states a similar "near disaster" event could have happen at Hillsborough in 1981, and subsequent ground modifications actually increased dangers. There were further problems in 1987 and 1988. Ultimately, the risks were known and tragedy was forseeable'.

edit: found this interesting link re: 1981 http://thehillsboroughdisasterdocumentary.com/2011/11/16/hillsborough-1981-disaster-narrowly-avoided/

And again, Hillsborough was in no way on its own in this regard. "Near" crushes happened up and down the country.

Nothing I said is wrong with regards to the stadium itself. The ground was picked for numerous netural cup ties because it was the best of a bad bunch of stadiums at that time. Hillsborough has hosted netural cup ties since 1989, too. Only that day has resulted in a loss of life, which was the result of a toxic blend of circumstances. With that same blend of circumstances, the disaster could have occurred at any other ground in the country.

All pulling up previous instances at Hillsborough does is possibly show a lack of lessons learned in football policing policy in the 80's, but that was an issue of the times and an issue of the game rather than any specific ground, Hillsborough or otherwise.
 

danwarb

Member
From the BBC live coverage: 'The report states a similar "near disaster" event could have happen at Hillsborough in 1981, and subsequent ground modifications actually increased dangers. There were further problems in 1987 and 1988. Ultimately, the risks were known and tragedy was forseeable'.

edit: found this interesting link re: 1981 http://thehillsboroughdisasterdocumentary.com/2011/11/16/hillsborough-1981-disaster-narrowly-avoided/

Also Chief Supt Duckenfield's first big match, with established protocol altered even before bigger mistakes were made.

The Health and Safety Executive's best estimate for the number of people who entered the leppings lane end, by any means, was ~400 under capacity. Yet people still go on about ticketless fans. The HSE reports submitted to the inquiry at the time: http://www.hse.gov.uk/foi/releases/hillsborough.htm
 

herod

Member
And again, Hillsborough was in no way on its own in this regard. "Near" crushes happened up and down the country.

Nothing I said is wrong with regards to the stadium itself. The ground was picked for numerous netural cup ties because it was the best of a bad bunch of stadiums at that time. Hillsborough has hosted netural cup ties since 1989, too. Only that day has resulted in a loss of life, which was the result of a toxic blend of circumstances. With that same blend of circumstances, the disaster could have occurred at any other ground in the country.

All pulling up previous instances at Hillsborough does is possibly show a lack of lessons learned in football policing policy in the 80's, but that was an issue of the times and an issue of the game rather than any specific ground, Hillsborough or otherwise.

All he said was 'Ancient stadium that was not fit for purpose and was inherently dangerous'. You disagreed, but I don't think what he said was false. That other stadiums were similar or worse is neither here nor there. It was a factor, and the result was removal of fences and mandatory seating. I don't think anyone is having a go at Hillsborough specifically.
 
I've noticed some comments by supporters of a certain rival club that are, to say the least, unsympathetic to the disaster - labelling Liverpool fans (or those fans then) with some unkind words. Why? Is there something that happened between these sets of fans back then, or are these trolls?
I think they call it "tit-for-tat".

It's just pathetic and doesn't deserve the time of day.
 

dc89

Member
I've noticed some comments by supporters of a certain rival club that are, to say the least, unsympathetic to the disaster - labelling Liverpool fans (or those fans then) with some unkind words. Why? Is there something that happened between these sets of fans back then, or are these trolls?

Just morons.

You get it, sadly.

Some City fans taunt United over Munich with aeroplane gestures. The majority don't. But a few do and it gives the fans a bad name.

Some United fans spray up City pubs with stuff about Foe. One or two individuals giving the thousands a bad name.

I could go on.
 

herod

Member
Just morons.

You get it, sadly.

Some City fans taunt United over Munich with aeroplane gestures. The majority don't. But a few do and it gives the fans a bad name.

Some United fans spray up City pubs with stuff about Foe. One or two individuals giving the thousands a bad name.

I could go on.

The most notable one I know of is some Arsenal fans make hissing sounds at White Hart Lane.
 

dc89

Member
The most notable one I know of is some Arsenal fans make hissing sounds at White Hart Lane.

That minority - scum of the earth.

I remember back to the 50th anniversary of the Munich air disaster and how well behaved every fan was. The silence was impeccably respected by both sets of fans.

The winner of the game was not important that day. The true winner was Manchester because rivalry was put aside and respect was shown.
 

Wilbur

Banned
That minority - scum of the earth.

I remember back to the 50th anniversary of the Munich air disaster and how well behaved every fan was. The silence was impeccably respected by both sets of fans.

The winner of the game was not important that day. The true winner was Manchester because rivalry was put aside and respect was shown.

Was that the game we wore those lovely plain kits? I remember that.

Some minority fans are just disgraceful but that's the way things are unfortunately. Just have to do your best to ignore it and not associate with it at all.
 
Statute of Limitation wouldn't apply in a case which was heard under false pretences

THe case would begin anew

Not quite correct.

s.32 of the Limitation Act 1980 allows for litigants to take action at the date of discovery where there has been fraud, concealment or mistake.

So they would rely on that in relation to any negligence claim.
 

dc89

Member
Was that the game we wore those lovely plain kits? I remember that.

Yes. United had a retro shirt and I think City wore a shirt without sponsors or kit makers logos.

The only thing they could have done to add more to the occasion is use the very old crest. But there is something legal about that which restricts its use. Can't remember what though.
 

Bumhead

Banned
All he said was 'Ancient stadium that was not fit for purpose and was inherently dangerous'. You disagreed, but I don't think what he said was false. That other stadiums were similar or worse is neither here nor there. It was a factor, and the result was removal of fences and mandatory seating. I don't think anyone is having a go at Hillsborough specifically.

But Hillsborough isn't an ancient stadium or unfit for purpose, even 23 years after the disaster. Its a perfectly safe stadium as we stand now here in 2012, so I'd continue to disagree that the stadium itself was "inherently dangerous". Structurally, the stadium is almost exactly the same, other than the South Stand which was redeveloped for Euro 96. The Leppings Lane end is structurally unchanged.

What was "inherently dangerous" was the barbaric fencing, which thankfully no longer exists in the UK.
 
Hhhhnnnggg that kit. I would even take that kit now just as it is with all the other shit plastered on it, crest, sponsors etc. Would be so awesome.
 

Bumhead

Banned
Retro kits are fantastic. In my ideal football world I would ban all sponsorship and logos from football shirts other than the club crest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom