***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 2 *****
=============================================================
"...parts of London are so radicalised the police are afraid for their lives"
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35037007
My instinct is to think what a twit but is he right? I used to travel to central London and Canary Wharf and that always seemed OK but what about the Tottenhams, Brixtons etc? London has always had problem areas but I doubt our police are running scared - certainly hope they aren't!!
He comes out with all kinds of BS which the American press and public seem to lap up. The article says "his poll ratings have risen after other hardline statements."
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 11 Nov 16 at 10:15
|
World-class twit with a hideous rug and rat-like incisors. Ghastly chap and rabid reactionary with no class at all. Makes Jeb Bush look like a genuine aristocrat.
London, well, yes, but it's bound to have dodgy bits being so big and having such a huge population.
The Babylon ain't runnin scared though bruv. Them is too fick innit?
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Tue 8 Dec 15 at 16:30
|
The only place in London I thought twice about visiting was the Broadwater Farm Estate not long after the riots, when I had some visitors stay in Finchley and decided to show them where it all happened.... God knows why, must have seemed like a good idea at the time.
I drove in there... and felt distinctly uncomfortable, so cleared off. There are limited access / exit points and a lot of it is like one huge underground car park with open air pedestrian access at the sides and internal staircases to the flats. Awful place. Whoever designed that needs a kick in the goolies.
That was off duty however.. and later in the evening... and the locals had done their best to hack off the head of a colleague.
|
|
I rest my various cases. We're all doomed captain Mainwaring.
|
If I were American my natural voting intent would probably be Republican... however, it wouldn't be with Trump on the ticket... and neither would it have been with Sarah Palin.
I cannot work out what the Yanks are up to. The man is an utter buffoon.
|
|
Wealthy and successful though and a lot of people like that
|
|
The only place in London I have felt unsafe is the Old Den. Wearing a claret and blue scarf at the time wasn't a good idea.
|
As AC says London has always had dodgy bits.
Didn't some Fox news 'expert' try and tell America that all of Birmingham was a no go area for white people? Trouble is with only a minority having any experience of foreign travel too many lap up this sort of carp.
I suspect Trumps' rivals are letting him do his worst for now in the hope he'll dig a big enough hole. Otherwise the gloves will come off once the serious primaries are under way.
|
Trump is a t***. He now wants to ban muslims and put them in internment camps because of the recent shooting, of what 20 people? by "terrorists"
We, can start by banning yanks for the other 750 domestic shootings they perpetrated so far this year, and of course we would have ban their cops, they have a unjustified fair share of that amount.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 8 Dec 15 at 17:40
|
The scariness of these ghetto areas is much exaggerated. I've never been seriously molested walking or driving about in London. If you have a destination and look as if you have a purpose to be there, you're all right. It's always worked for me.
Can't remember if it was Broadwater Farm, but one time when I went to see someone in one of those grim estates he made me wait on the fringes until he could escort me in. There were these paranoid episodes in the days of grass roots (and very often, just grass knowImean?) politics I think they called it.
Helps to know people and have contacts wherever you are in the world. Solitude in a strange place can be quite stressful. The kindness of strangers is crucial sometimes.
|
Novelist chap whose name I seem to have blocked out has just been droning on in his usual doleful mode.
Apparently nothing is fit for purpose he says. Miserablism the Algerians used to call it.
|
Anyone listened to The Now Show lately?
Defined Donald Trump as the king of farts and his wife Ivana as 'I want a fart'.
|
>> .parts of London are so radicalised the police are afraid for their lives
I think that can be said for many areas in UK. Parts of Luton, Bradford immediately comes to my mind.
|
>> >> .parts of London are so radicalised the police are afraid for their lives
>>
>> I think that can be said for many areas in UK. Parts of Luton, Bradford
>> immediately comes to my mind.
Asian dominated, but radicalised? Police afraid for their lives? really? got any proof?
|
|
Four men = Not proof of "majority" I'm afraid.
|
Depends on how you interpret.
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/donald-trump-muslims-isis-one-chart-shows-what-people-really-think-about-a6765241.html
Even a 15% sympathy to ISIS translates to a several million people and if only a handful of them turns out to be radicalised it still a massive risk to the world.
|
>>still a massive risk to the world
pfft - they are the current Saddam Hussein, Gadaffi, Iranian terror state, North Korea (ahahahaha).
Gotta have enemies or we'll focus on how much our own guys are bumming us at home.
Massive risk of a few dozen deaths several times per year? - not worth turning life into an Orwellian nightmare over.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Wed 9 Dec 15 at 12:58
|
|
Boris Johnson: Mayor of London Says He Would Avoid Parts of New York for 'Risk of Meeting Donald Trump"
|
I see that "A petition calling for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump to be barred from entering UK has passed 100,000, meaning MPs will have to consider debating the issue".
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35052505
|
Yet people don't bother when people like Anjem Chowdhury preaches hate!
Ban will have no effect. If Trump doesn't become US president everyone will forget about him and if he does become US president UK will brown nose him anyway.
Current Indian prime minister Modi was denied visa for US travel previously but now US is a good friend of him.
There is no permanent friend or permanent enemy in business and politics.
|
>> Yet people don't bother when people like Anjem Chowdhury preaches hate!
Is that the same Anjem Chowdhury who is currently on remand awaiting trial for allegedly encouraging support for Islamic State?
Amazing he wound up in that situation as nobody bothered when he preached hate. Suppose he handed himself in, did he?
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35048796
Time Person of the Year 2015
1. Angela Merkel - German chancellor since the 2005 election, leader of the CDU
2. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi - head of the Islamic State militant group
3. Donald Trump -
So is he still on the up ?
|
Re Abu - I guess they don't want to get blown up...
|
Blimey.
Looking at most of that lot on the list, coming first isn't exactly a compliment.
|
Trump is going to be POTUS.. (in my view)
And he'll win many UKIPPers to support his views.
tinyurl.com/od3hm3j
|
>> Trump is going to be POTUS.. (in my view)
I cling to the thought that not even the US voter would stand for that ugly pinched rat-faced old crypto-fascist babe in tennis shoes and a ghastly hat as prez.
Some moral and aesthetic standards must surely survive even in the former colonies, what?
|
|
They elected Dubya. Twice.
|
|
A bit of a dumb smart aleck college boy type, yes, but would pass for a gentleman and intellectual compared to Trump admirers.
|
|
Trump makes Dubya look like a liberal safe pair of hands.
|
>> Trump makes Dubya look like a liberal safe pair of hands.
>>
Trump is smart. He knows what the hick vote want to hear.. Dubya knew as well but was not smart..
Last edited by: smokie on Wed 9 Dec 15 at 17:16
|
|
Ah the Daily Mail. That makes it fact then.
|
|
The facts in the story are fairly clear. What they don't quite amount to is that Trump was right.
|
If this is true, then it should have been nipped in the bud the first time it started. It is ridiculous that there should be no go areas for the police or areas that police should not be in uniform!
I recall seeing an article that coppers should not go to a cafe for lunch in uniform because the public would think that they were taking a break on paid time!?
How many suits go to cafes at lunch without changing? I certainly do and whilst I don't wear a uniform I do dress to corporate guidelines and you would be able to have a good guess as to who I work for by looking at the colour of my tie!
I think it would be a good thing to see them in uniform at break time etc if they wanted to because it shows that they are an important part of the community.
|
>> They elected Dubya. Twice.
>>
.... as would I.
Trump, no.
|
>> >> They elected Dubya. Twice.
>> >>
>> .... as would I.
Yeah good ole Dubya, when the going was easy he was in there being mr leader - Iraq 2, when it got tough he was MIA - Hurricane Katrina and 9-11. And some weak pacifist black bloke had to hunt down and kill public enemy no1. And that based on info that came from a non Gitmo (Dubyas brainwave) source.
An enviable record ole dubya the younger.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 9 Dec 15 at 18:04
|
>> when it got tough he was MIA - Hurricane Katrina and
>> 9-11.
That's ridiculous.
I'd agree that Katrina wasn't his administrations's finest hour.. but.. Obama happened to be in power when Bin Laden was found.. so, he was lucky in that respect.... that's fine, that's how it goes.
As for 9-11, Bush did what every President does... followed what his security detail told him to and headed for safety so he could be in a position to lead, which is what he was elected to do and was a sensible option until the facts were more clear.
|
>> As for 9-11, Bush did what every President does... followed what his security detail told
>> him to and headed for safety so he could be in a position to lead,
>> which is what he was elected to do and was a sensible option until the
>> facts were more clear.
You need to read the memoirs of his aides and advisors during that time.
|
>> You need to read the memoirs of his aides and advisors during that time.
>>
I have
|
|
clearly not the ones I did.
|
>> >> They elected Dubya. Twice.
>> >>
>> .... as would I.
And Blair too, presumably? Or is that different? Because so far as I can see, Blair was actually a superior leader to Dubya, despite his manifest and numerous faults and mistakes. Not that I ever voted for Blair, but I would have voted for him before Dubya given the choice. By a country mile.
|
>> >> .... as would I.
>>
>> And Blair too, presumably? Or is that different?
No, I didn't vote for Blair. I've never voted Labour and do not ever foresee the chance that I will.
When Blair got in, as they'd lurched to the Right and grabbed the centre ground, I thought to myself 'oh well, it could be worse', he's nearly a Tory.
Since then he has gone downwards, considerably, in my estimation. I now think him to be an unpleasant, self centered, immoral man.
|
>> I now think him to
>> be an unpleasant, self centered, immoral man.
>>
And yet you'd vote for Bush. Sounds like rosette fixation. The two of them are peas from the same pod. Why trust one drug and not the other, as a certain purveyor of rare herbs and proscribed chemicals says in my favourite film?
|
>> And yet you'd vote for Bush. Sounds like rosette fixation. The two of them are
>> peas from the same pod.
They are chalk and cheese.
Read Bush's autobiography, once you've got past the inevitable flannel, he's not a bad man, at all.
He is not unpleasant, self centred or immoral... IMO.
As for 'rosette fixation', I have already posted on this thread how Trump or Palin (or someone similar for that matter) would be a big 'no' for me... as would the Tories if they put Theresa May in charge.
|
>> >> Read Bush's autobiography
AUTObiography? Those don't often paint a negative picture of a personality, surely.
Obvious neocon warmonger is obvious. That's the pod him and Phoney Tony emerged from.
|
>> Blimey.
>>
>> Looking at most of that lot on the list, coming first isn't exactly a compliment.
>>
it isn't meant to be.
"Person of the Year (called Man of the Year until 1999[1]) is an annual issue of the United States news magazine Time that features and profiles a person, group, idea or object that "for better or for worse...has done the most to influence the events of the year"."
Note the "for worse" bit
Time magazine points out that controversial figures such as Adolf Hitler (1938), Joseph Stalin (1939 and 1942), Nikita Khrushchev (1957) and Ayatollah Khomeini (1979) have also been granted the title for their impacts.
wiki
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Wed 9 Dec 15 at 17:53
|
continuing this thread...
"Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has said he will never leave the 2016 race despite increasing calls for him to step aside."
so a few more weeks yet?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35055626
|
|
That article mentions his golf interest near Aberdeen. I remember that well as I spent a year working in Aberdeen and the volume of protests in the local press against him and his plans was deafening. I hadn't realised (and am surprised) that it went through.
|
>> him and his plans was deafening. I hadn't realised (and am surprised) that it went
>> through.
Palms were greased, sporrans were stuffed.
|
>>Palms were greased, sporrans were stuffed.
Amusingly the same sporrans then OK'd a massive offshore windfarm within sight of the Menie gold estate much to DT's fury.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Thu 10 Dec 15 at 14:06
|
>> >>Palms were greased, sporrans were stuffed.
>>
>> Amusingly the same sporrans then OK'd a massive offshore windfarm within sight of the Menie
>> gold estate much to DT's fury.
Yes, he then issued his standard opening response "I shall sue them for 10 billion dollars, no-one messes with Donald Trump"
|
|
Unfortunately as his dad (KKK member in the 1920s, who was busted by the Feds in the 70s for not renting his property to blacks and encouraging black tenants to leave...) lived well into his 90s, we may have another 2-3 decades of this obnoxious stool and his utterances.
|
>> Unfortunately as his dad (KKK member in the 1920s, who was busted by the Feds
>> in the 70s for not renting his property to blacks and encouraging black tenants to
>> leave...) lived well into his 90s, we may have another 2-3 decades of this obnoxious
>> stool and his utterances.
Yer funnily enough daddy was an immigrant.
|
, we may have another 2-3 decades of this obnoxious
>> stool and his utterances.
>>
You cannot address the next POTUS like that...
(I am serious: I think he may well win)
|
|
If the yanks vote him in, they deserve nothing less than our complete scorn and ridicule. Thankfully now you have backed him he has no chance
|
>> You cannot address the next POTUS like that...
>> (I am serious: I think he may well win)
Nah, not even the Americans will buy him madf.
Your man with the pint and the snout is a hundred times better (I am serious. I really do have a soft spot for the cartoonists' godsend).
|
Something to read being as it's gorn rather quite on the 4play front:
Trump: The ugly reality of American politics www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/12/10/pers-d10.html
|
All politics has an ugly side when push comes to shove.
Trumpety isn't the only ugly brute out there. Y'know?
|
Trump admits even he is terrified of Trump presidency - Mash
goo.gl/Eu3mTh
|
Trump is very blunt the way he comes out with his speeches.He is to outspoken and may our leaders are playing it down to much.
There is fear at the moment and people are scared there be a attack somewhere.I understand the stiff upper lip and live goes on as normal but you never know.
|
Read the Inspectors reports on illegal schools and see why Trump is right.
""clear evidence of segregation, with separate classrooms for boys and girls" and "no evidence of appropriate vetting checks being carried out on staff".
Inspectors also warned of "pupils being taught a narrow curriculum that was failing to prepare them for life in modern Britain"."
All illegal www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-34778509
Edit:@ If they were Cof E they would be closed at once and those running them jailed. It is illegal to teach without checking for criminal records. The BBC were telling me on the way home there would be no prosecutions due to "local sensibilities"
Equal under the law? Bull excrement.
And don't accuse me of racism .. the above is purely factual.
Last edited by: madf on Fri 11 Dec 15 at 19:21
|
>> Read the Inspectors reports on illegal schools and see why Trump is right.
Trump has not mentioned schools. Nor does that indicated radicalisation, nor scared cops, no no go areas, nor any of the other crap trump has trumped out.
|
Useful snippet of info I saw earlier....
Numbe of UK Police killed by terrorists in last 5 years.... 0
Number of Americans shot by their own dogs.... 6
|
>>Number of Americans shot by their own dogs.... 6
Number of Americans accidently shot by their children ... ?
|
Trumps odd phrases:
I think it's a North American illness....
tinyurl.com/j7sxgzd
|
|
That is scary. People must be getting dumber.
|
Not really....Wind farms slow the Earth's rotation down. Don't they ?
|
>>
>> Not really....Wind farms slow the Earth's rotation down. Don't they ?
>>
Only when they are facing east to west. When they are pointing west to east they speed up the Earth's rotation.
When they all point north to south we will all topple off!
:-)
|
>> That is scary. People must be getting dumber.
>>
No . It's Darwinism in action.
|
Evolution must have just about stopped benefitting humans now that most survive past breeding age.
The dumbing down effect of popular culture probably means we are now going backwards. As as with many trends, the US is the leads the way.
|
"... Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron ... tweeted: "Trump is a bloviating billionaire with downright offensive views. But I'd rather we debated inequality or the NHS"
From Wikipedia
"Bloviation is a style of empty, pompous political speech particularly associated with Ohio due to the term's popularization by United States President Warren G. Harding, who, himself a master of the technique, described it as "the art of speaking for as long as the occasion warrants, and saying nothing".[1] The verb "to bloviate" is the act of creating bloviation. In terms of its etymology, according to one source, the word is a "compound of blow, in its sense of 'to boast' (also in another typical Americanism, blowhard), with a mock-Latin ending to give it the self-important stature implicit in its meaning."
Well I never knew that...
|
What a shame Farron appears to be a serious Christian. Can't properly trust a person's judgement when they can't even see through that thin fairy story.
I prefer the C of E lip service, doing it out of tradition, little Englander bombast and obsequiousness type, like Cameron, even if I still dislike that approach intensely.
I miss Cleggy. And Ashdown. And Kennedy. Most under-rated politicians of the modern era and would all have made good PMs. Imagine replacing Blair and Brown with Ashdown and Kennedy in our history. Nuff said. The electorate are bloviating dullards.
|
Make a good name for a car wouldn't it.
"Whats your wheels then'?
"I pilot a Bloviator 4.75 litre GT Sportbreak" and then waffle on about its finer points.
|
>> What a shame Farron appears to be a serious Christian. Can't properly trust a person's
>> judgement when they can't even see through that thin fairy story.
I try not to be as rude as that normally, but you only have to look at the current second biggest threat to us (after climate change) to see the problem with theism - you never know what their god(s) are going to tell them to do next.
>>The electorate are bloviating dullards.
That's the thing with democracy - bad form to complain about the electorate! Of course the problem is the now general assumption that everybody should have an equal vote...
|
>> I try not to be as rude as that normally, but you only have to
>> look at the current second biggest threat to us (after climate change) to see the
>> problem with theism - you never know what their god(s) are going to tell them
>> to do next.
One of these days you guys will realise the "problem" is not with theism but with fundamentalism in all its varieties
|
|
Which is why I prefer those "Christians" who are just going though the motions to the properly serious, fundamental ones. There's no harm in the former really (although I would prefer the nonsense went away completely truth be told), but the true believers? Yikes.
|
Al, if you really looked at it there are millions of Christians / Muslims / Sikhs who have far more than a "going through the motions" faith without being fundamentalist or extremist.
Just as there are many atheists who live perfectly normal lives without the "fairy story" or "nonsense" snide little comments
Lets leave the rudeness off in this forum please
|
|
There is no problem with fundamentalist believers, but there is with those who exploit them
|
So long as outright racism is allowed to stand here, I think a little perceived rudeness about religion should be pretty tolerable. I'm struggling to see it as rude anyway, if someone's faith is genuine and firm then surely a little criticism is neither here nor there - I'm just being frank in my book.
If one believes, then that is fairly fundamental. All believers are fundamentalists. I fundamentally believe there's no god, so the same applies to me. I'm quite happy for someone to be frank about it and take no offence or see any rudeness.
|
>> ... or see any rudeness.
>>
I wasn't the one who first called your words rude
Maybe you should look at them again
>> all believers are fundamentalists
Rubbish
I will say no more on the subject
Last edited by: commerdriver on Wed 6 Jan 16 at 12:07
|
What's first go to do with it? I'm not sure why you think you need to point that out anyway. You were the second, I can read well enough to know that. But no matter. You think my words rude, I disagree, c'est la vie.
Glad we can be polite about that. Although "rubbish" could sound a bit rude........
|
|
I have no belief, and I'm happy to discuss that with anyone, but I still think you were unnecessarily rude.
|
To whom? Tim Farron? I don't believe he'd be that bothered.
Or just to religious believers in general? In which case, I though that, according to the "it's-political-correctness-gone-mad" mob, the religious are far too sensitive and we should be able to be rude about it whenever we like, such as drawing and laughing at cartoons of the Prophet when they ask us not to?
I'm confused.
Or is it one rule for offending Christians and one for offending Muslims?
Christopher Hitchens had it right:
"If someone tells me that I’ve hurt their feelings, I say, ‘I’m still waiting to hear what your point is.’ In this country, I’ve been told, ‘That’s offensive,’ as if those two words constitute an argument or a comment."
|
It matters not whether you believe in a god, any religion, or you don't.
It becomes dangerous when you decide that your belief system makes you superior to others and able to insist upon what they do or don't do.
The non-religious should leave the religious alone as the religious should leave the non-religious and other religious alone. I cannot see why people should deal with their own insecurities by trying to destroy the beliefs of others.
|
>> Al, if you really looked at it there are millions of Christians / Muslims /
>> Sikhs who have far more than a "going through the motions" faith without being fundamentalist
>> or extremist.
>> Just as there are many atheists who live perfectly normal lives without the "fairy story"
>> or "nonsense" snide little comments
>> Lets leave the rudeness off in this forum please
You're right of course Commerdriver. I apologise and I should have included that important distinction. I have no reason to be concerned about Mr Farron or his judgement on the basis of his religious inclinations.
I was brought up with Quakerism; I don't expect to see them subverting their beliefs to propound jihad any time soon.
|
|
Well Mr Trump seems to have done rather well and now seems set to secure the Republican nomination. Looks like it will be him v. Hilary but that's yet to be decided. It'll be an interesting campaign, not least due to the strength of support for Trump amongst the party.
|
Rather him than Cruz, to be frank. Although that's like trying to choose who to cheer for in a Liverpool v Chelsea match.
But I expect the Democrats to win the Presidency now.
|
|
Sarah Palin for V Pres!!!!
|
|
Yes, I hope they wheel her gormless fizzog out again. Another nail in their coffin.
|
|
I'm warming to the idea of President Trump. It would liven the world up a bit.
|
|
Evidently you've been living in a cave for the last 25 years, but the world is quite "lively" enough at the moment without adding that fruitcake into the mix.
|
I don't know that there is much for us to be worried about with Trump. I don't think he would be good, but he won't initiate Armageddon either.
1) He will embarrass the Americans. The worlds comedians and internet picture providers will have a fine old time.
2) He will decrease their political standing in the world. Difficult to be taken seriously or with dignity when your president is laughed at.
3) Obama couldn't get his health care proposal through as he wanted or shut Guantanamo, so I don't see Trump getting his wacky ideas through. Not a chance. Bush didn't have to persuade the US to go to war, it wanted to.
4) He's got his foot in the door because the rest are such clowns and behaved so badly for the last 25 years. It may well be that to prevent it happening again they will smarten up their act. The "Farage" effect, but hopefully lasting longer than 2 months.
5) He may well weaken the US economy, but he's unlikely to make it crash.
But in the end the most likely impact of Trump as a candidate is Hillary as President. Now she might be a bit more to worry about.
Trump has little support and ability to get stuff passed, Hillary on the other hand might.
|
>>
>> Trump has little support and ability to get stuff passed, Hillary on the other hand
>> might.
>>
Err who controls the Senate? Republicans.
Who controls the House of Representatives? The Republicans..
"The 2014 elections gave the Republicans control of the Senate (and control of both houses of Congress) for the first time since the 109th Congress. With 247 seats in the House of Representatives and 54 seats in the Senate, this Congress began with the largest Republican majority since the 71st Congress of 1929–1931. tinyurl.com/j9y9x8f
Hilary has little chance of passing any Legislation if POTUS. Trump has a better chance...
|
So you think that the Republicans will allow something to be passed, say insisting on the building of a wall, for example, simply because it comes from a Republican?
Still, we shall see what we shall see.
|
The Republican party establishment loathes Trump. Many I suspect hope to see him comprehensively beaten in the election and are looking forward to 2020 to restore the status quo
|
Eleven to four on at Ladbrokes . Seems quite good odds to me. I think she will win by a landslide.
Trump has effectively delivered the presidency to a very ordinary and uninspiring politician.
|
|
The thought of Donald Tromp with his finger on the nuclear trigger gives me the eebie jeebies.
|
|
I found the thought of Bush with his finger on the button much scarier.
|
An airplane was about to crash; there were 5 passengers on board, but only 4 parachutes.
the first passenger, holly madison said, "i have my own reality show and i am the smartest and prettiest woman at playboy, so americans don't want me to die."she took the first pack and jumped out of the plane.
the second passenger, john mccain, said, "i'm a senator, and a decorated war hero from an elite navy unit from the united states of america." so he grabbed the second pack and jumped.
the third passenger, donald trump said, "i am going to be the next president of the united states, i am the smartest man in our country, and i will make america great again" .
so he grabbed the pack next to him and jumped out.
the fourth passenger, billy graham, said to the fifth passenger, a 10-year-old schoolgirl, "i have lived a full life and served my god the best i could. i will sacrifice my life and let you have the last parachute. "
the little girl said, "that's okay, mr. graham. there's a parachute left for you. the smartest man in america took my schoolbag ."
|
|
Some friends attending the Bard-Fest got talking with an American fellow hotel guest who said "I wanna apologise to you guys for Donald Trump".
|
|
Now that the USA has a surplus of oil the middle East should be worried if Trump is the Commander in Chief.
|
|
Reegan was a actor and became president.Politics is a theater.And Trump will play his part me thinks.
|
Reagan was a good POTUS, in my opinion, probably because he took advice.
If The Donald wins, I suspect he will tone down his bluster, which is what propelled him to hos present position. He may be a twit, but he is not stupid!
I fear that Hilary Clinton will win, which may please the feminists, but will not play well for America as she is a flawed individual.
|
|
Individuals invariably *are* flawed. What particular faults of Hilary have you in mind?
|
>> >> I fear that Hilary Clinton will win, which may please the feminists
Black'n'White Rog, with his distinct whiff of sexism, strikes again.
If you "fear" Hilary Clinton, I suggest you get some professional help.
|
>> If you "fear" Hilary Clinton, I suggest you get some professional help.
That would be Hillary Clinton. One l is the male form. Rarely seen these days though.
|
|
Wow, new depths of pendantry plumbed there, Brompterooney. Well done.
|
***pedantry on pedantry alert*****
Whilst I don't think I've seen "Hillary" used for the male gender, "Hilary" is common for the female (I'm not even sure it isn't more common than "Hillary" - it may be market-dependent ;-) ).
Funnily enough, I have two female friends called Hilary (and they're both definitely "Hilary").
|
>> ***pedantry on pedantry alert*****
>>
>> Whilst I don't think I've seen "Hillary" used for the male gender, "Hilary" is common
>> for the female (I'm not even sure it isn't more common than "Hillary" - it
>> may be market-dependent ;-) ).
>>
>> Funnily enough, I have two female friends called Hilary (and they're both definitely "Hilary").
>>
I can confirm that the female version, in the UK, is Hilary. So is the male (Mr. Benn) - the surname may be Hillary (Sir Edmund) but never the forename in this country.
This is from personal experience.
Over the pond they do things differently.
|
>> I can confirm that the female version, in the UK, is Hilary.
>> Over the pond they do things differently.
Sorry, but I know a female by the name of Hillary and she's from this side of the pond.
|
>> Sorry, but I know a female by the name of Hillary and she's from this
>> side of the pond.
Her parents had it wrong then... of the 6 I am/know/have known - all one l. Comes from the Latin roots and definitely one l.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 6 May 16 at 10:21
|
>>I can confirm that the female version, in the UK, is Hilary.
>> So is the male (Mr. Benn) - the surname may be Hillary (Sir Edmund) but never the forename in this country.
Which Benn are you referring to ?
Where does Hilary James Wedgwood Benn fit in all this?
|
>> Which Benn are you referring to ?
>> Where does Hilary James Wedgwood Benn fit in all this?
www.hilarybennmp.com/
Shadow Foreign Secretary...
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 6 May 16 at 10:20
|
>> >> >> I fear that Hilary Clinton will win, which may please the feminists
>>
>> Black'n'White Rog, with his distinct whiff of sexism, strikes again.
>>
>> If you "fear" Hilary Clinton, I suggest you get some professional help.
I wouldn't be so sure. A pal of mine is reading "Clinton Cash" just now and has gone right off her.
Ann Widdecombe had a phrase that comes to mind.
Clinton still looks like the best option though if it comes down to her and the Donald.
I do think though that should Trump actually get elected he would calm down immediately. Actually having the job is always very different to shouting the odds when somebody else is doing it.
|
I'm getting to like Trump.
Not because he is the saviour of America and the free world, but because he is completely different from the modern generation of spin doctored plastic PR men who are afraid to upset anyone that we have been stuck with for the past few decades. I hope he wins, he won't start WW3 or cause the planet to melt, but he'll give the political establishment the kick up the backside it needs.
|
>>he'll give the political establishment the kick up the backside it needs.
As I said...
"4) He's got his foot in the door because the rest are such clowns and behaved so badly for the last 25 years. It may well be that to prevent it happening again they will smarten up their act. The "Farage" effect, but hopefully lasting longer than 2 months."
The real problem with Trump is that he will probably ensure Clinton wins. For the Republicans that is the real issue.
Have you noticed how the Democrats are not really criticising him yet. They have absolutely no interest in weakening him at this point.
As soon as he is the official candidate, then they will *really* go after him. Big guns and nasty, i expect.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 5 May 16 at 16:14
|
>> The real problem with Trump is that he will probably ensure Clinton wins.
Discussion on Andrew Neil "Daily Politics" today suggested that people outside US "don't get it" and that Trump is will beat Clinton.
|
>> >>
>>
>> Discussion on Andrew Neil "Daily Politics" today suggested that people outside US "don't get it" and that Trump is will beat Clinton.
>>
Which is why Cameron is starting to backtrack on the comments he made about Trump a few months ago. It is spineless little weasels like him who are warming me to DT.
|
I'm not really sure why your opinion of Cameron would have any bearing whatsoever on your opinion of Trump.
They could both be idiots, both be heroes or one of each. There's no inter dependency.
|
>>Discussion on Andrew Neil "Daily Politics" today suggested that people outside US "don't get it"
And who was holding that opinion?
Because that's not why I'm hearing from the Americans I have contact with.
|
In all the easily found reports it seems only Rasmussen favour Trump.
I think they are also failing to take into account the change in state of mind between voicing an emotional opinion in the run up and actually voting, both in turn out and choice.
www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
|
>> >>Discussion on Andrew Neil "Daily Politics" today suggested that people outside US "don't get it"
>>
>> And who was holding that opinion?
>>
>> Because that's not why I'm hearing from the Americans I have contact with.
>>
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=22748&m=505116
On Wed 29 Jun 16 09:34
I wrote: " I also believe Trump will win. So if you have any nightmares about him becoming US president, get them out of your head now before the reality hits. "
Say no more.
|
...but because he is completely different...
Yes, because electing politicians who are a bit of a giggle has played out so well elsewhere. See also Johnson, A.B.de P. and Farage, N.P. - ah, wait, that last one doesn't work, does it? (Even iOS tried to autocorrect it to 'thrashed', which was nice.)
|
>> >> >> I fear that Hilary Clinton will win, which may please the feminists
>>
>> Black'n'White Rog, with his distinct whiff of sexism, strikes again.
>>
>> If you "fear" Hilary Clinton, I suggest you get some professional help.
(1) As I'm one who thought Margaret Thatcher was a great Prime Mister, you have me wrong.
(2) If you do not understand the meaning of "fear" when used in his manner, I think you need some educating help.
|
...Margaret Thatcher was a great Prime Mister...
'Nuff sed.
|
>> ...Margaret Thatcher was a great Prime Mister...
She was the greatest peace time PM this country has ever had.
|
|
Your scowly, Skip? That's two in need of NHS specs, introduced under Attlee, withdrawn under Thatcher.
Last edited by: WillDeBeest on Thu 5 May 16 at 20:38
|
>> >> ...Margaret Thatcher was a great Prime Mister...
>>
>> She was the greatest peace time PM this country has ever had.
>>
I'll second that.
|
>> I'll second that.
Surprise surprise!!!
Equally shockingly I'd nominate Clement Attlee.
|
>> Equally shockingly I'd nominate Clement Attlee.
>>
I'm with this giza.
As deputy PM, he kept all the domestic plates spinning during the Hitler unpleasantness as well.
|
I can't say I think either of them were "The Greatest". They both did significant stuff, and divided opinions as always rate some of it as good and some of it not.
What they both were though was impressive, honest, decent people genuinely trying to to their best for the country.
A bit more of that from all politicians wouldn't go amiss.
|
>> Equally shockingly I'd nominate Clement Attlee.
>>
I don't have a problem stating that Clement Attlee is right up there. Are you able/willing to do the same for Margaret Thatcher?
|
>> Are you
>> able/willing to do the same for Margaret Thatcher?
False equivalence. She's Marmite. Attlee was not. Obviously she has huge historical significance but as I've said before she was far too divisive to be, IMO, great.
Attlee of course also had a massive role as Churchill's deputy in the wartime coalition.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 6 May 16 at 09:29
|
>> Margaret Thatcher was a great Prime Mister
Orgreave isn't far from your gaff, right? Pop up there and see what the locals think about that. Maybe you could try to discuss the subject in a few scenic local pubs, you know, pint in hand like good old Nige?
|
Why is it necessary to ridicule 'good ole nige' when trying to make your point?
Does it somehow cement the validity of it?
.....or does it just make you feel good?
Pat
|
Edit to say I've just read this >> happened in North Wales, with them returning some UKIP assembly members.<<
Now I understand.....feeling threatened again!
Pat
|
>> Edit to say I've just read this >> happened in North Wales, with them returning
>> some UKIP assembly members.<<
>>
>> Now I understand.....feeling threatened again!
>>
>> Pat
No, again you misunderstand, I was gently mocking the electorate of North Wales, implying that they voted UKIP because they thought it was EU Referendum day. I'm not even remotely threatened by UKIP.
|
It was hardly the most rigorous of mocking either, pretty gentle really I thought, but yeah, makes me feel good. Why shouldn't it? He's a buffoon and it makes me feel all superior and righteous to mock him. He's my diametric political opponent, how am I supposed to feel about him? Mocking him is part of my point, anyway.
There you go.
(BT Hub's working great thanks BTW - although it makes my phone think it's up north when I use the BBC Weather app!)
Back to Thatch, it's becoming obvious her administration was in firm control of the Police and they were operating under instructions (eagerly it seems in Yorkshire) to behave like an Army in response to industrial disputes and football fans. Greatest PM ever? I think not. Near-dictatorship is a better description. A shameful period in our country's social history.
Last edited by: Alanović on Fri 6 May 16 at 10:04
|
|
Yes. The contrast with Attlee (and with Churchill in wartime, but not in peacetime) shows the difference between a leader and a mere ruler.
|
If you google "who was greatest prime minister" and skim though the results you'll find that nearly all lists have Thatch in the top 4 - and that includes the Grauniad!!
I don't think there is any dispute that she was a strong prime minister and most would see that as a quality.
From memory I'd say the miners and football fans were not entirely blameless for the image they had at the time though I suppose if you want to rewrite history that is your prerogative, it seems to happen a lot these days.
|
I don't think you need to rewrite history to think that the police treated picketing miners as the enemy, physically attacked them with batons, and lied en masse in an attempt to get convictions at Orgreave. It was a miracle that none were killed.
If the police had been properly dealt with in the wake of Orgreave then Hillsborough might have been a different story. That bit, I grant, is speculation on my part.
Last edited by: Manatee on Fri 6 May 16 at 10:29
|
At the risk of opening myself up to criticism I was collecting coal and clinker from the Warks/Notts/Leics coal mines during the miners strike and taking it to power stations all over the country.
We all crossed the picket lines and we were all ( not just me as a female) were terrified because the miners were scary, climbing all over the cab, trying to get in windows and doors.
The Police ordered us to keep doors locked, windows shut and keep moving whatever happened and whatever they did...even if it meant running over them.
Make of that what you will, but it is a true and honest account of what actually happened.
Pat
|
>> I don't think you need to rewrite history to think that the police treated picketing
>> miners as the enemy
Quite so, M. Same goes for football fans. I suppose you had to be one at the time to know, but even followers of relatively benign clubs like mine, who have never had a reputation for violence and trouble (I'm not claiming 100% innocence, just that the vast majority are decent, well behaved and don't deserve Police abuse), were mistreated by the Police.
|
>> I don't think you need to rewrite history to think that the police treated picketing
>> miners as the enemy, physically attacked them with batons, and lied en masse in an
>> attempt to get convictions at Orgreave. It was a miracle that none were killed.
>>
No, but making out that the all that violence came from one side is rewriting history big time. Much of what happened was televised at the time you could see where the violence came from and it looked to be both sides to me.
I have never forgotten the miners who dropped a concrete block on a taxi driver not because they were violent men naturally but because of the levels of hatred and violence that those involved in the dispute had raised it to.
I dont think anyone came out of that dispute with much credit and to see the levels of hate that still exists around there and around Thatcher is extremely sad.
|
>> you could see where the violence came from and it looked to be both sides to me.<<
That was certainly the way we saw it happen.
Pat
|
I'm sure I said before, I worked at the Coal Board HQ for many years including the strikes in the late 70s and 80s. When the miners came to visit it was pretty intimidating, I don't remember feeling it was the police who were intimidating me but if you know better... :-)
I have never been a footie fan but I can also remember seeing running battles along public streets between rival fans, and it wasn't just Millwall.
I also remember one day as an young teenager probably in the late 60s cowering in a shop door while the mods and rockers in Rhyl had a running battle along a street which I was walking along. I'm not sure the police were even there at the start of that incident. (They did subsequently, and I suppose oppressively with Vic's hindsight but, humorously to me at the time, start removing Doc Martens and offensive weapons from any skinheads who arrived at the railway station).
Also see Brixton and Toxteth riots.
The levels of mob street violence were really scary if you were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Hard to blame the police for that really. And the transgressors used a variety of seriously dangerous weapons against a each other, or against a barely armed and under-protected police force. Hardly surprising that they may have got a bit over-exuberant occasionally.
|
There's more to it though, smokie, which is coming out in the current Hillsborough and Orgreave stories. The conspiracies with government and press to present the other side as the sole wrong doers, the cover ups, the stitching up of the innocent, the outright lying.
Yeah, I know sometimes force has to be met with force. But us ornery umble subjects can't use excessive force in self defence, see Tony Martin for evidence.
As for the hindsight dig, I'd like to remind you that, concerning the football fan angle, I was (and still am) there and you were not. We still get thousands of people corralled and detained by the Police when there's no need nor danger present. It causes more problems than the non-existent ones it is intended to solve. Only a few years ago I was extremely fearful of a crush developing when trying to get out of a football ground, as my groups of fans was contained in a stand with only one small, narrow exit route going to be opened. A couple more minutes and there would have been casualties, people were being funnelled from other sections towards our exit which hadn't been opened. They were waiting for the home fans to disperse before letting us out, and there was no reason for the authorities to suspect trouble might start. Those at the back had no idea, and were simply following instructions. nobody was misbehaving.
|
>> I don't think you need to rewrite history to think that the police treated picketing
>> miners as the enemy, physically attacked them with batons, and lied en masse in an
>> attempt to get convictions at Orgreave. It was a miracle that none were killed.
It is you who is trying to re-write history. I was at the miner's strike 7 or 8 times.
If you are tasked with ensuring the law is complied with and that vehicles/people are permitted to enter leave certain places that a large, violent, baying mob decides otherwise... what options in your wisdom would you propose?
If the elected government of a democracy decrees something via a law passed in parliament ... why should some section(s) of society illegally decide otherwise? Why wouldn't you expect the police to forcefully ensure the law is complied with?
Try standing in a line of linked arms attempting to keep a road open, being pressed very heavily by a large hostile crowd some of whom are throwing missiles at you... with speeding buses covered in armour driving past you as fast as they can go.... with you thinking "I don't fancy my chances if this line breaks and I fall into the road, because those buses aren't stopping for anything".
I was proud to have done my bit then.. and now. If over 30 years later someone decrees those actions were wrong, then they can shove their thoughts where the sun doesn't shine, because I have an utterly clear conscience.
The bottom line was the coal dispute; a Capitalist versus Socialist dispute on whether it was financially viable to keep increasingly more expensive pits open.. and a Far Left Union agitator who wanted to bring down the elected government of the day by using the coal industry difficulties as the catalyst. That government made laws making it illegal to prevent people going to work if they wished to. Large encouraged mobs tried to ignore that law and prevent people working if they wanted to, so the police were sent in to enforce the law.
Quelle surpise, there was conflict.
|
>> If the police had been properly dealt with in the wake of Orgreave then Hillsborough
>> might have been a different story. That bit, I grant, is speculation on my part.
>>
I think that is a fairly foolish statement.
No one has ever said there was any deliberate wrongdoing by police at Hillsborough. The only real criticism has been allegations of cover ups afterwards.
We have the situation now, where IMO the most recent Hillsborough verdict has re-written history the other way... and no one can now state what they believe if it isn't the approved version.
That IMO isn't factually correct.. or healthy.
Somewhere in the middle will be the truth.
|
Funny isn't it, how when results are achieved through lawful judicial process under the administration of democratically elected government, that they are not accepted by those whose "team" agenda it does not suit.
Pot, kettle, black.
I had long thought the Liverpool fans guilty, I have been disabused of that notion and am a bit ashamed. They have been guilty of other sins, yes, but this was not one of them. I am happy to accept the verdict of my peers, until such time as an appeal should be successful, should the SY Police or anyone else think they should challenge the verdict.
>> and no one can now state what they believe if it isn't the approved version.
Oh, the irony. We were given the Police's "Approved" version for decades, with the complicity of the democratically elected government.
|
>> Funny isn't it, how when results are achieved through lawful judicial process under the administration
>> of democratically elected government, that they are not accepted by those whose "team" agenda it
>> does not suit.
>>
>> Pot, kettle, black.
I think you are yet again applying your own standards to an issue. This isn't a case of me wanting 'my team' to do well if you are insinuating i'd have an automatic affiliation with South Yorkshire Police.
I'd like to know the truth... not a warped one sided version of the truth... whoever spins it.
Oh...do you 'really' believe that ALL court decisions are correct?
>> I had long thought the Liverpool fans guilty, I have been disabused of that notion
>> and am a bit ashamed.
They had their part to play. Who turned up lateish to the game and who tried to fit into a space that couldn't accommodate them?
>> I am happy to accept the verdict of my peers,
>> until such time as an appeal should be successful, should the SY Police or anyone
>> else think they should challenge the verdict.
So, court verdicts are all you base your thoughts on?
>> Oh, the irony. We were given the Police's "Approved" version for decades, with the complicity
>> of the democratically elected government.
Your angle again...What is ironic about it? I want a truthful, full version.
|
>>>> They had their part to play. Who turned up lateish to the game and who
>> tried to fit into a space that couldn't accommodate them?
Except that there was enough space, if that hadn't been unwittingly funnelled in to a limited number of fenced "pens" by the authorities.
I'm sorry, but after 27 years it has finally come out, and your argument, which I also bought until a couple of weeks ago, is wrong. I was wrong.
|
>> Except that there was enough space, if that hadn't been unwittingly funnelled in to a
>> limited number of fenced "pens" by the authorities.
>>
>> I'm sorry, but after 27 years it has finally come out, and your argument, which
>> I also bought until a couple of weeks ago, is wrong. I was wrong.
>>
It isn't wrong, not at all.
I'm not saying 'it is all their fault'... I am saying it plays a part in the tragedy.
Turning up right on time but not allowing enough time for a queue, with a load of beer in you, then expecting to go to the nearest viewing point or your usual viewing point is a custom at most grounds and goes on to this day.
I agree that the ground design, the stewarding, the policing etc also had its part to play... but you cannot erase history and place all the blame in one area simply because it is PC to do so.
|
>> but you cannot erase history and place all the blame in one area
>> simply because it is PC to do so.
Ah. I'm being PC. Of course. Yes, that must be it. I thought the fans were to blame for 27 years, then I was suddenly struck by PC lightning.
|
>> Ah. I'm being PC. Of course. Yes, that must be it. I thought the fans
>> were to blame for 27 years, then I was suddenly struck by PC lightning.
>>
No, you've swallowed what's come out of this latest inquiry... and a load of Press baying.
Somewhere in the middle is the truth.
You'd be quick to criticise someone who relied on the initial findings 27 years ago. So the pendulum has swung the other way...but too far?
|
Turning up right on time but not allowing enough time for a queue, with a load of beer in you, then expecting to go to the nearest viewing point or your usual viewing point is a custom at most grounds and goes on to this day.
If your job is crowd management, do you manage the crowd that's there or the one you think ought to have been there?
|
>> If your job is crowd management, do you manage the crowd that's there or the
>> one you think ought to have been there?
>>
1, Armchair general speaks..
2, Those that tried to manage the crowd that day all said how exceptional the circs were, in that they'd never dealt with a crowd like that.
3, The ground was flawed... design of the walkways and the metal fences at the front, etc
4, Larger number of people turned up at the last minute than was expected.
|
"Duckenfield admitted he had not familiarised himself in any detail with the ground’s layout or capacities of its different sections. He did not know the seven turnstiles, through which 10,100 Liverpool supporters with standing tickets had to be funnelled to gain access to the Leppings Lane terrace, opened opposite a large tunnel leading straight to the central pens, three and four. He did not even know that the police were responsible for monitoring overcrowding, nor that the police had a tactic, named after a superintendent, John Freeman, of closing the tunnel when the central pens were full, and directing supporters to the sides. He admitted his focus before the match had been on dealing with misbehaviour, and he had not considered the need to protect people from overcrowding or crushing."
From: www.theguardian.com/football/2016/apr/26/hillsborough-disaster-deadly-mistakes-and-lies-that-lasted-decades
Have you read it all, WP? And you still apportion some blame to the supporters? Were they all supposed to have had encyclopaedic knowledge of a strange football ground and refuse to go where directed by officialdom?
"Erase history"? "PC"? What the actual f? You haven't taken in any of the realities of what happened, have you?
You simply can not justify your line blaming fans any more, in any way. Like I said, it used to be my line too, but it's now obviously very, very wrong. it's OK to admit to being wrong, in the face of contrary evidence.
Last edited by: Alanović on Mon 9 May 16 at 13:27
|
And you think the Jury/ Media / Public heard ALL the evidence??.
Do you think the inquiry team had any terms of reference set / directed?
Do you think the Coroner had any terms of reference set / directed?
The inquiry is a monster.
A criminal prosecution might be interesting at least the defence might have the opportunity under Disclosure rules to introduce and examine everything.
|
I don't think David Duckenfield would share your enthusiasm for a criminal trial, FC. Why is he and the wider SYP not making that argument do you think? They've coughed. They've got nothing more to give. They've been found out. Sorry, but that's that.
Why are you and WP trying to cling on to shreds of hope that the Police an be exonerated still?
|
>> Why are you and WP trying to cling on to shreds of hope that the
>> Police an be exonerated still?
>>
Why do you think?
Because, this circus has now had a pendulum swing too far the other way.
I want the truth, not a verdict that satisfies someone's grief or piles all the crap one way when it isn't so.
I'm no longer a cop and haven't been for nearly 5 years. Even when I was in I had a reputation for being the PITA who'd challenge what wasn't right.
You presume, incorrectly, (again) that I'd automatically back the police...not so and never has been.
If I see something isn't right, I will say so, every time.
If you think this disaster was all down to the police...then think again.
|
Evidently, there's no way I can get you to see the error in what you're saying. I'll leave it with this quote form the article I linked to:
"Yet the remnants of the police effort to blame the supporters were on show even here, despite the families’ long, exhausting battle against it, and the lord chief justice, Igor Judge, having stated when he quashed the first inquest that the narrative was false.
Duckenfield’s own barrister, John Beggs QC, an advocate instructed by police forces nationwide, pressed the case most forcefully that supporters had misbehaved, persistently introducing as context into his questioning notorious previous episodes of football hooliganism, his manner often repellent to the families attending.
But Beggs was not alone. The present-day South Yorkshire police force itself and the Police Federation also argued that Liverpool supporters outside the Leppings Lane end could be found to have contributed to the disaster because “a significant minority†were alleged to have been drunk and “non-compliant†with police orders to move back. Yet survivors gave evidence of chaos at the Leppings Lane approach, no atmosphere of drunkenness or misbehaviour, and no meaningful police activity to make orderly queueing possible in that nasty space."
I'm not going to continue the debate, it's getting unseemly, and I'm sorry for the thread drift.
Last edited by: Alanović on Mon 9 May 16 at 16:10
|
... and it was only as majority verdict 7 - 2. Many courts wouldn't accept such a split would they? 10 - 2 maybe but not 7 - 2.
Wikipedia says "In England and Wales a majority of 10–2 (10–1 if only eleven jurors remain) is needed for a verdict;"
Of course this was a coroners court so I guess different rules apply.
|
Perhaps WP and FC are "the two".
I wonder how they square Duckenfield's statement which I quoted above with their insistence that it was the fans' fault?
|
>> I wonder how they square Duckenfield's statement which I quoted above with their insistence that
>> it was the fans' fault?
>>
I haven't said that, you've made that up in your mind.
|
>> ... and it was only as majority verdict 7 - 2. Many courts wouldn't accept
>> such a split would they? 10 - 2 maybe but not 7 - 2.
Weak sauce Smokie.
Majority verdict was on Question 6; Are you satisfied, so that you are sure, that those
5 who died in the disaster were unlawfully killed?.
Although the transcript on the website is not 100% clear IIRC the verdicts on other matters were unanimous.
The coroner was left after two years attrition, with nine jurors. He either goes with what he's got or orders a re-run. If anybody involved thinks 7:2 is unlawful they can seek Judicial Review.
The Administrative Court has offices in Manchester as well as London.
|
"And you still apportion some blame to the supporters?"
Anyone who attended football matches 40 or 50 years ago would tell you that a tragedy was just waiting to happen. It happened at Hillsborough, but it could have been almost anywhere.
|
>> "And you still apportion some blame to the supporters?"
>>
>> Anyone who attended football matches 40 or 50 years ago would tell you that a
>> tragedy was just waiting to happen. It happened at Hillsborough, but it could have been
>> almost anywhere.
>>
+1
45-50 years ago I attended a number of matches at Ibrox, Glasgow Rangers ground. The crowds there were every bit as crushed and dangerous, for big games especially, as any in England and we saw the result in 1971. Although the club was blamed, many people in Glasgow, and probably elsewhere knew at the time that the huge crowds made it inevitable somewhere someday, somewhere.
It wasn't really until all seat stadiums and all ticket games that the problem really became more manageable although even that is not the perfect answer.
|
So, the only "fault" we can lay on the supporters is that they were there, and they were a crowd.
Would you blame a pedestrian for a part in his own death, if he were walking along the pavement and got run over from behind by a distracted driver who mounted the kerb? Yes, because he was just there? Not really how it works, is it?
|
>> Would you blame a pedestrian for a part in his own death, if he were
>> walking along the pavement and got run over from behind by a distracted driver who
>> mounted the kerb? Yes, because he was just there? Not really how it works, is
>> it?
You'd be correct in the example you post...however that bears no resemblance to that of the stadium disaster.
I do not blame the fans for causing the deaths 'per se', not at all...I'm not even hinting at it*... but a large group of beered up fans turning up late or with not really enough time, who then pushed like hell to get in... had its part to play in the disaster... as did a load of other things...
.... and it is ludicrous to state otherwise.
A senior police officer sat on a horse outside was so frightened of the squash outside and the fear of someone dying, he asked (mistakenly) for the gates to be opened (and this made the matter worse)... nevertheless he acted in good faith.
* your problem is you presume you know what I am thinking, no doubt to fit some stereotypical view you hold...and you don't most of the time.
|
>> So, the only "fault" we can lay on the supporters is that they were there,
>> and they were a crowd.
>>
Didn't say that, I don't recall any cars on the terracing at Ibrox or any other ground I ever went to, my point was that overcrowding of a space is of itself, dangerous. I don't know the numbers for Hillsborough but Ibrox in the 60s and 70s regularly held well over 100,000. The same space, largely reconstructed, now has a limit of just over 50,000. Not everything is 100% somebody's fault.
I wasn't allowed to go to old firm games as a youngster because my parents said it wasn't safe
|
>> Anyone who attended football matches 40 or 50 years ago would tell you that a
>> tragedy was just waiting to happen. It happened at Hillsborough, but it could have been
>> almost anywhere.
>>
I know, I was there 40-odd years ago, as I've said. I've described an incident I was involved in which, in my judgement, could have ended with loss of life, and that was only 10 years ago or so. In that incident, there was no fault on the part of supporters, but the stewards and, yes, the Police on duty. This has been now proven to be the case at Hillsborough, and it lends credence to the belief I had that poor crowd control was at the root of the near miss I was involved in.
Duckenfield's statement, quoted above, which FC and WP want to ignore, illustrates the Keystone approach the cops took to crowd control. Much as I can't stand Liverpool FC and some of its less than wholesome supporters, Hillsborough wasn't their fault. WP and FC can sit at the table in the corner muttering gently into their pints and rocking, but they're on their own now. I, and anyone else with an open mind, have departed their table.
Last edited by: Alanović on Mon 9 May 16 at 15:41
|
>> You simply can not justify your line blaming fans any more, in any way. Like
>> I said, it used to be my line too, but it's now obviously very, very
>> wrong. it's OK to admit to being wrong, in the face of contrary evidence.
>>
You really are a first class ****.
I have NOT blamed the fans.... I HAVE said they had their part to play (the ones that turned up last, not the poor sods at the front).
I do not blame the Police for the deaths...but... they also had their part to play.
Same with the stewards.
Same with the owners of the ground.
Same with whoever designed the ground.
Same with the FA.
Same with a few more.
I would really appreciate it if you would CEASE to put words in my mouth that are simply not there but a figment of your imagination.
If you wish to think that all of the above, bar the police, are now nothing to do with the disaster in anyway shape or form..then carry on... but you would be deluded.
Last edited by: Westpig on Mon 9 May 16 at 15:43
|
See my reply to commerdriver above.
"Part to play"? What does that mean, other than "Partly their fault"? Those are weasel words, and you are in denial.
You wanna call me names, go ahead, but you're seriously the deluded one here.
|
>> "Part to play"? What does that mean, other than "Partly their fault"?
Yes, i'd agree with that. Play on words etc... but they do have a role in it, however you wish to phrase it.... however, not the sole blame and not to the degree it was first reported all those years ago...and it was (and is) a common theme at a football match.
>> Those are weasel
>> words, and you are in denial.
Whatever. If you cannot see it, then you cannot see it.
>> You wanna call me names, go ahead, but you're seriously the deluded one here.
>>
In your opinion, of course.
|
>> You wanna call me names, go ahead,
You can have an apology for that.
My excuse is I find it exceptionally irritating when (incorrect) words are put in my mouth, however, the apology stands.
Last edited by: Westpig on Mon 9 May 16 at 16:44
|
>> >> "Part to play"? What does that mean, other than "Partly their fault"?
>>
>> Yes, i'd agree with that. Play on words etc... but they do have a role
>> in it, however you wish to phrase it.... however, not the sole blame and not
>> to the degree it was first reported all those years ago...and it was (and is)
>> a common theme at a football match.
bit late to this, but the jury were asked that question and gave a no. I think the wording was, did the fans contribute to the situation at the leppings lane end.? I don't know if it unanimous or not , but they sat through the evidence. Why did you think specifically the jury were wrong?
|
>> Why did you think specifically the jury were wrong?
Because 'law' can sometimes be black or white, when grey is usually the case... and... if that match had every single one of the fans acting like saints, then I'm Mother Theresa.
I've tried to find a quote on Facebook, from an officer who was there at the tragedy... it nicely sums it up for me...I've read a number of them over time... and can relate it to my own service when I've policed public order events
I didn't post it at the time, because I don't know how to without including my own FB account details... and the quote was quite long.
I'll see if I can find it and e-mail it to you (or someone who can post it on here without me cocking it up)... for me it's the truth, glaringly obviously... (and he was scathing of the senior management).
|
>> I've tried to find a quote on Facebook, from an officer who was there at
>> the tragedy... it nicely sums it up for me...I've read a number of them over
>> time... and can relate it to my own service when I've policed public order events
Found it:
tinyurl.com/z8l6bdg
|
Found it:
>>
>> tinyurl.com/z8l6bdg
>>
Read it, I'm not sure what part relates to the fans at the game or their impact on the deaths. It basically criticises senior police officers?
|
>> Found it:
>>
>> tinyurl.com/z8l6bdg
Perhaps on the day the fans did not contribute directly to the 96 deaths but as a group their general behaviour over previous years had led to the point of wire cages on terraces
Not exactly a ringing endorsement for your case WP as he concedes behaviour on the day not contributory. Getting tanked up ahead of the match and turning up minutes before KO was a tradition long pre-dating real hooligan stuff, crowd control and stadium management should have been able to deal with it.
While it's true to say pens were a response to fan behaviour the adoption of that solution speaks volumes about the attitude of both governments and the clubs/FA etc. Compared to all seat stadia, proper ticketing controlling numbers and having adequate stewarding it was a quick simple answer. UEFA and FA were, I think leading advocates of pens and fences.
|
>> >>
>> While it's true to say pens were a response to fan behaviour the adoption of
>> that solution speaks volumes about the attitude of both governments and the clubs/FA etc. Compared
>> to all seat stadia, proper ticketing controlling numbers and having adequate stewarding it was a
>> quick simple answer. UEFA and FA were, I think leading advocates of pens and fences.
>>
>>
>>
Before Sky most clubs didn't have a pot to P in and the crumbling pre war stadiums were like that because there was no money to upgrade them. The installation of all seating would have bankrupted most clubs.
|
>> Not exactly a ringing endorsement for your case WP as he concedes behaviour on the
>> day not contributory.
.. and what is 'my case' so to speak?
If some of you wish to think that inebriated fans pushing into a pen that is already too crowded had no part to play in this disaster, however unwittingly... (amongst the other pertinent things e.g. police command failures, stewarding difficulties, ground design, FA decisions, etc).... then crack on.
|
>>>> If some of you wish to think that inebriated fans pushing into a pen that
>> is already too crowded had no part to play in this disaster, however unwittingly... (amongst
>> the other pertinent things e.g. police command failures, stewarding difficulties, ground design, FA decisions, etc)....
>> then crack on.
The pertinent point, though, is that those fans didn't know the pens which they were instructed and guided to enter were already overcrowded. It would have been reasonable on their part to assume that the opposite was the case, why else would they being getting sent there?
It was not heir decision to enter the crowded pens, and they could not see far enough to realise it was wrong to do so. That's what the Police were responsible for and could see clearly from their control room (look at the diagram of the ground).
How can this be the fault of the fans? Their "part to play" was simply the fact of being there and doing what they were told.
|
On the day I don't think the fans were to blame. They should never have been allowed to enter that pen. Those at the back can't have known what was happening at the front. Had the police owned up and said they'd made a mistake back then a lot of heartache for families would have been avoided. Instead they tried to cover it up and blame fans - and it is for that they should be brought to justice.
I also think it's irrelevant if some fans were drunk - what happened should not have even been possible. The design of this ground and others was an accident waiting to happen.
Surely there should have been a mechanism for the quick release of the fencing to allow quick exit to the pitch in an emergency.
The blame on football fans of that era is that their behaviour led to the installation of fencing at grounds. It was not their behaviour on the day but that had happened many times before.
It's terrible what happened on that day - but it could have been even worse.
|
>> heir decision
*awaits a quip regarding the Duke of Cornwall from WDB*
|
>> The pertinent point, though, is that those fans didn't know the pens which they were
>> instructed and guided to enter were already overcrowded. It would have been reasonable on their
>> part to assume that the opposite was the case, why else would they being getting
>> sent there?
Eh?
Have you ever been in a crowd situation where its getting too much?
For people to die in those numbers at the front, there must have been one tremendous jam..and pushing.. at the back....and that initially had happened in the fairly wide space outside the ground (and is the reason why the gates were erroneously opened)... and which then caused it to be worse inside the ground.
>> It was not heir decision to enter the crowded pens, and they could not see
>> far enough to realise it was wrong to do so. That's what the Police were
>> responsible for and could see clearly from their control room (look at the diagram of
>> the ground).
>>
>> How can this be the fault of the fans? Their "part to play" was simply
>> the fact of being there and doing what they were told.
I don't think 'fault' is necessarily the correct word... however 'part to play' is more like it.
If you turn up early for the match, are not inebriated and orderly walk into a sporting arena to a suitable spot...then you'd be hard done by for someone like me to say you had a part to play in a disaster.
However, if you chuck as much ale down your gullet as you can before the match, time your visit as late as poss for more ale, know there'll be queues but 'who cares', then when you get there push as hard as you can to get in, because it is crowded... rather than let natural movement allow forward momentum...or fail to remain stagnant when it won't naturally move forward... then you 'had your part to play'....unless of course you suggest that police/stewards were throwing people in at the back of the scrum?
People died at the front, because people at the back were pushing to get in... simple as that. Now, of course the tunnels allowing that access should have been closed off.. however, that relates to other people's part to play.
Last edited by: Westpig on Tue 10 May 16 at 17:45
|
>> If you turn up early for the match, are not inebriated and orderly walk into a sporting arena to
>> a suitable spot.
But it should not have been possible for drunks to cause this much damage. If they were that drunk they should not have been let in to the ground. The drunk angle in my opinion is not an excuse.
In fact, if a group of fans (call them IS) wanted to kill others.... it should not have been possible. The biggest problem (ignoring letting in fans and letting them getting into an already over-crowded area) was the pens. Fence at the front to stop escape to the pitch and bars/rails every now and then to stop surging forward.
At the very least, explosive bolts or similar should have been on the fences for emergency purposes.
The fans that did cause problems at matches in those days however had caused the installation of the fences to control them.
|
At the very least, explosive bolts or similar should have been on the fences for
>> emergency purposes.
I don't think explosive bolts would have been a good idea but certainly a way to open them up as a safety valve now seems obvious. I wonder if anyone thought not even about a crush but say a fire? I wonder how they thought they were going to get people to safety or perhaps it hadn't even been thought of?
|
>> I wonder if anyone thought not even about a crush but say a fire?
That is what I have thought and hence my 'explosive bolts' idea. I didn't necessarily mean they were explosive. In an emergency the fence should not have been there. There were locked gates but they wouldn't open them and in the circumstances I'm not sure gates were enough.
We ended up with fences and pens because of fans' behaviour. And the answer was probably all seater stadia with allocated seats... The terraces should've gone when they thought fences were the answer to crowd problems.
Let us not forget as well as 96 deaths Hillsborough had nearly 800 injuries.
It was only a few years earlier that the fire at Bradford killed 56.... all started from a discarded cigarette. Luckily no fencing....
Last edited by: rtj70 on Tue 10 May 16 at 22:07
|
>> >>>>
>> It was only a few years earlier that the fire at Bradford killed 56.... all
>> started from a discarded cigarette. Luckily no fencing....
>>
Not proven.
There are tales of underhand goings on at Bradford, the then owner of the club Stafford Higginbotham having a bit of a dubious past. At least nine former businesses he owned went up in flames and he pocketed generous insurance payouts -
www.theguardian.com/football/2015/apr/15/bradford-fire-stafford-heginbotham-martin-fletcher
|
>> Not proven.
I never said it was deliberate or arson. There were reports of someone dropping a cigarette and it falling through to below the stand setting it all in motion so to speak.
|
>>>> If you turn up early for the match, are not inebriated and orderly walk into
>> a sporting arena to a suitable spot...then you'd be hard done by for someone like
>> me to say you had a part to play in a disaster.
According to the evidence presented to the court, this is the case for the vast majority of fans. Tell me, how could anyone have gotten to a "suitable spot", when all those spots were, unknowing to that person, already taken by people being crushed to death, and you were being instructed to keep moving towards that non-existant spot?
>> However, if you chuck as much ale down your gullet as you can before the
>> match, time your visit as late as poss for more ale, know there'll be queues
>> but 'who cares', then when you get there push as hard as you can to
>> get in, because it is crowded... rather than let natural movement allow forward momentum...or fail
>> to remain stagnant when it won't naturally move forward... then you 'had your part to
>> play'
You really haven't bothered digesting the evidence presented to the court, have you?
....unless of course you suggest that police/stewards were throwing people in at the back of
>> the scrum?
That's an exaggeration, but is in essence what was happening, as the fans were directed to the overcrowded pens, as I said clearly above, to which you could only reply "Eh?". Again, you appear not to have taken on board the actual evidence if you can't grasp this simple concept.
Your view is now the minority view, and has been debunked in court. You are unwilling to accept this, I can help you no further.
Last edited by: Alanović on Wed 11 May 16 at 10:24
|
Last night a tiny proportion of the aforementioned generally saintly football fans decided that throwing missiles and causing damage to the visiting team's coach was acceptable behaviour. I watched a report on Sky, subtitles only so I may have misunderstood, where two guys had been reluctantly propelled into the thick of it. It made me think how difficult it is for anyone trying to control any incident, or deal with any stranger, how difficult it would be for them to know whether the stranger was a perp or an innocent party.
Reminds me of my mate, a regular Waitrose shopper, who was stopped because they thought he was shoplifting (- he wasn't). He was outraged as a respectable citizen and regular customer, but as I pointed out to him at the time, they didn't know that he wasn't a violent criminal and therefore had to "manage" him in a robust way.
|
Ah, West Am. Shame their usual apologist has departed this board (partly - I don't expect his alleged Altea Ego still on here will out himself by slipping up on this subject), although there are one or two other fans of theirs around still.
Still can't shake the idiots who follow them sadly, but their chairmen do themselves no favours with their pathetic attempts to excuse last night's shower. It's a shame for the decent majority, really. Couple of my best mates are Ammers.
The fans were quite obviously the main guilty party last night, but the Police had their "part to play" by not controlling the crowd properly.
Last edited by: Alanović on Wed 11 May 16 at 11:39
|
So how do the police know when they need to have the coachloads of heavies with riot gear waiting up the side streets, and the horseboxes handy, and when they can save on their budgets by just fielding a few PCSOs?
Especially as infiltration to gain intel seems to be a bit of a no-no too these days, though I've never seen many footy fans I'd want to sleep with :-)
Genuine question - do the clubs pay for policing outside the ground?
I'm loving the thread drift... :-)
|
|
They have their part to play, smokie.
|
>>>>
>> Still can't shake the idiots who follow them sadly, but their chairmen do themselves no
>> favours with their pathetic attempts to excuse last night's shower. It's a shame for the
>> decent majority, really. Couple of my best mates are Ammers.
>>
>> The fans were quite obviously the main guilty party last night, but the Police had
>> their "part to play" by not controlling the crowd properly.
>>
Loved the Sun this morning, "I'm forever throwing bottles".
On the subject of the violence itself, while there is no excuse for offering friendly bottles and cans or drink to the visiting Man United players without first ensuring the coach windows were open and they could catch them, you have to wonder about the stupidity of whoever arranged Man U's travelling schedule. This is the second time recently they have had the start of a game in London delayed because the were stuck in traffic. Did they not realise there was a football match going on, the roads would be congested and it would perhaps have been wise to leave a little more time to get to the ground?
|
|
Indeed. Another one for the list of those with their "part to play".
|
>> According to the evidence presented to the court, this is the case for the vast
>> majority of fans.
Hooray... at last... we are in agreement. That simple fact is pretty much a given... however, it isn't one that I believe for all of the ones that arrived late, inebriated... and if you do , then I think you to be exceptionally naive.
>> Tell me, how could anyone have gotten to a "suitable spot", when
>> all those spots were, unknowing to that person, already taken by people being crushed to
>> death, and you were being instructed to keep moving towards that non-existant spot?
That comment was directed at people arriving in good time for the game and entering naturally without too much of a crush. I'm not sure anyone is going to think of a 'suitable spot' as being one where people are being crushed to death?
>> You really haven't bothered digesting the evidence presented to the court, have you?
I have life experience of policing at numerous football matches... in the 80's... as a PC in a police public order team.... and although not really a football fan, have over the years been to a fair number of matches to see my home team Plymouth.
I have been at Wembley, as a police supervisor, for more times than I can remember for football matches and was in charge of the 'safety serial' for a number of years.
I have witnessed and been part of numerous crowd crushes in the above circs and been briefed on how to try to alleviate them.
I shadowed a colleague several times, who was qualified as a police match commander, with a view to becoming a match commander myself at Barnet...(although this didn't happen in the end, because I was going to retire within 2 years and I hadn't sought the role, so someone else did it).
My knowledge of the above and brief look at the Hillsborough Report allows me to know how the events were likely to have happened.
>> Again, you appear not to have taken on board the actual evidence if you
>> can't grasp this simple concept.
You seem to think, naively, that if it's published, then it's so?
>> Your view is now the minority view,
Yes, it probably is. Do you not see the irony of the original view now being played as false and now everyone believing all of the second one?
There will be elements of both that are true and likewise elements of both that are either not true ot have not been stated clearly enough.
That's how the system works.
>> and has been debunked in court.
So what? Do you accept court results as utter fact? I don't.
I learnt that very soon after first joining the police... they are a game, played by rules and for which some ignore... the truth isn't necessarily always the end result (or the whole truth).
>> I can help you no further.
That implies you've been helpful earlier... I can disabuse you of that notion.
Last edited by: Westpig on Wed 11 May 16 at 18:28
|
WP, as I've said before I've enormous respect and gratitude for the job you did and your insight and experience is interesting and enlightening. My experience is from the point of view of the supporter, and I've been in a fair few bigger football crowds than the average handful you get down at Argyle, it's not just Fulham games I've been to. ;-)
I apologise if you think I was implying I'd been in anyway helpful to you, I used the wrong words and evidently that notion is quite ridiculous as it seems your view is immutable.
So be it.
|
>> as it seems
>> your view is immutable.
My view will/would change if I were to read/hear something that is worth changing my mind for. Until I do, it will remain the same.
|
I wonder if the retired SYP Insp. above, who wrote his thoughts of the days events, gave evidence at the inquest?? He has stated that he witnessed alcohol consumption, intoxication and the seizure of alcohol. Likewise probably many of his colleagues.
The jury had to answer several pre set questions - yes or no. The answer that they gave to most of the questions have generally been agreed on many years ago.
|
>> I wonder if the retired SYP Insp. above, who wrote his thoughts of the days
>> events, gave evidence at the inquest?? He has stated that he witnessed alcohol consumption, intoxication
>> and the seizure of alcohol. Likewise probably many of his colleagues.
I don't think anybody is arguing that no alcohol was consumed and all fans were stone cold sober.
>> The jury had to answer several pre set questions - yes or no. The answer
>> that they gave to most of the questions have generally been agreed on many years
>> ago.
Are you seriously alleging some sort of conspiracy?
|
> My view will/would change if I were to read/hear something that is worth changing my
>> mind for. Until I do, it will remain the same.
>>
What sort of information do you think you'd see that would make you change your mind to the extent you'd agree with the jury?
|
>> What sort of information do you think you'd see that would make you change your
>> mind to the extent you'd agree with the jury?
>>
Something meaningful from a trusted source that was there on the day... so e.g. the police officer's account I posted earlier, maybe ambulance staff, off duty fireman at the match or something similar.
I have presented cases at court (prior to the introduction of the CPS), have put case files together, supervised case files, liaised with the CPS on what evidenced is/is not needed, been the officer who deals with police/CPS complaints... given evidence at all forms of court, etc... so it's not that I don't know how the system works.
Courts are an absolute lottery, esp with juries.
I don't like the current jury system, I think we should have professional juries.
|
>> Courts are an absolute lottery, esp with juries.
Translation: Courts acquit people where Police are convinced of guilt.
|
>> Translation: Courts acquit people where Police are convinced of guilt.
>>
You can translate my posts however you like.
I have seen cases go to trial (rarely) that the evidence was fairly flimsy.... and yet seen a conviction...
... and conversely, seen many an acquittal, despite the strongest evidence you could imagine.
Don't forget, the police see all the evidence, the jury see only what is admitted.
The whole thing is a game. These days, the standard of prosecutor in some places is so laughable that defence lawyers are moaning that the system has fallen into disrepute. I know this is a drift from a Coroners Court hearing, but it shows automatic respect for court decisions is somewhat misplaced... they are a flawed system.
Last edited by: Westpig on Thu 12 May 16 at 22:49
|
>>>>
>> I don't like the current jury system, I think we should have professional juries.
>>
The trouble with professional jurors is they naturally become dependant on their jobs in order to live. That makes them open to political pressure, one instance I can think of being told by the powers that be to increase guilty verdicts in sexual assault cases by a government trying to curry favour with either the media or whatever pressure group is shouting the loudest.
It has been happening for decades with driving test examiners who are leant on to either increase or decrease the pass rates depending on driving test waiting times.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Thu 12 May 16 at 20:22
|
Something meaningful from a trusted source that was there on the day... so e.g. the
>> police officer's account I posted earlier, maybe ambulance staff, off duty fireman at the match
>> or something similar.
I would imagine that the jury had many such sources. what would you like to see them say to change your mind to the extent you'd agree with the jury?
|
>> I would imagine that the jury had many such sources. what would you like to
>> see them say to change your mind to the extent you'd agree with the jury?
>>
For me, if a jury can say that the fans had no role in this.... with the knowledge I have picked up in life, I know that cannot possibly be so. Some of them did have a part to play, they had to, otherwise there wouldn't have been a crush.
I'm not talking criminal culpability or negligence, or malice aforethought or anything like... but to exonerate completely and leave the issue to other people makes no sense whatsoever and lacks credibility.
So I think their decision making to be flawed, influenced by the wrongs of the earlier hearings, public opinion and/or the suffering of the victim's families.
So to answer your question, I don't think there's anything they could say to me.
|
So I think their decision making to be flawed, influenced by the wrongs of the
>> earlier hearings, public opinion and/or the suffering of the victim's families.
>>
>> So to answer your question, I don't think there's anything they could say to me.
>>
I thought you'd say that, i think you've over weighed your own personal experiences. Although that's human nature.
|
>> I thought you'd say that, i think you've over weighed your own personal experiences. Although
>> that's human nature.
>>
From my perspective, I am calling it as I see it, not what I am told is how I should see it.
If the Hillsborough verdict was more realistic, in that it acknowledged what a great number of people know to be true with regard British football matches i.e. boorish behaviour of some fans..... then I'd be more inclined to agree with it.
|
|
The verdict was "Unlawful Killing". Where in that do you see the gap to get a bit about a few lager louts in? Is there a verdict available called "Unlawful Killing but hey drunk people were around so it wasn't that bad really"?
|
>> The verdict was "Unlawful Killing".
Who was unlawful?
|
>> Is there a verdict available called "Unlawful
>> Killing but hey drunk people were around so it wasn't that bad really"?
>>
You are going to have great difficulty pinning 'unlawful killing' on any given person/ organisation if the reality was a number of different factors, combined, caused the disaster.
|
>> From my perspective, I am calling it as I see it, not what I am
>> told is how I should see it.
The members of the jury would no doubt say the same.
>> If the Hillsborough verdict was more realistic, in that it acknowledged what a great number
>> of people know to be true with regard British football matches i.e. boorish behaviour of
>> some fans..... then I'd be more inclined to agree with it.
I would imagine the jury knew all about the fan issues around that era, they obviously felt it didn't contribute to the deaths. I suppose that's the fundamental point you disagree on.
|
>> I would imagine the jury knew all about the fan issues around that era, they
>> obviously felt it didn't contribute to the deaths. I suppose that's the fundamental point you
>> disagree on.
>>
Absolutely.
I'm thinking of drawing a line on this. It's not the Westpig forum, I've more than made my point.
|
>> Something meaningful from a trusted source that was there on the day
Like the statements made by Police Officers there on the day that their superiors prevailed on them to change?
|
>> Like the statements made by Police Officers there on the day that their superiors prevailed
>> on them to change?
>>
I did say 'something meaningful'... e.g. that article I posted from Andy Frith.
|
Was Andy Frith called to give evidence?? He states that he saw evidence of influence of alcohol and was involved in the seizing of alcohol. Likewise presumably many of his colleagues.
There does not appear to have been one person come forward to say "Ok I was there and didn't have a ticket". Not one! Yet that type of behaviour was well known back then. Early reports indicate that some supporters where turned back at the turnstiles and then carried back by the tide of supporters trying to enter the ground. So who were they? Why were they turned back?
There is unlikely to be a queue of fans at the inquiry / coroners court wanting to admit to being ticketless that day and attempting to enter the ground. Particularly with the the subsequent tragic deaths of 96.
As I've previously stated, have 'terms of reference' been given to the inquiry. At the end of the day the outcome was still going to be the same. Most of the questions answered by the jury we knew the answers to before the inquiry began.
In any event SYP were not going to get out of this favourably and as they say, 'might as well get hung for a sheep as lamb' get the verdicts and start to draw a line in the sand.
|
>> In any event SYP were not going to get out of this favourably and as they say, 'might as well get hung for a sheep as lamb' get the verdicts and
One almost feels sorry for the carphounds. But they are callous chaps, they'll get over it.
>> start to draw a line in the sand.
Sand is very unreliable stuff. Much better to chisel a line into the road, I've always found.
|
Looks like they are in trouble again.
Sun front page yesterday.
www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/7144255/Kos-cops-go-on-booze-bender.html
5pm to 12.30am session. Non story. Off duty springs to mind. At least Ben's Mother is more pragmatic.
|
>>
>> Courts are an absolute lottery, esp with juries.
>>
>> I don't like the current jury system, I think we should have professional juries.
>>
Whether we are talking about Hillsborough or anywhere else, those of you that are saying that the jury (any jury, anywhere) brought in a verdict of x, therefore that must be the case. May I remind you of the pathetic Timothy Evans case:-
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Evans
|
We're losing sight of what the jury said here. They returned a verdict of "Unlawful Killing". If, as WP says, the crowd had a part to play in this, will we see prosecutions of members of that crowd? Or just the officers and authorities who were in command of the situation? Surely this is the litmus test of who had a part to play - who it is that may be prosecuted.
Sure, I'll accept the crowd had a part to play, in so far as that part to play only extends to having been there and acted on the instructions of the authorities in good faith. Any further part to play must then surely fall under the umbrella of the unlawful killing - is that what you're suggesting, WP?
|
>> We're losing sight of what the jury said here. They returned a verdict of "Unlawful
>> Killing". If, as WP says, the crowd had a part to play in this, will
>> we see prosecutions of members of that crowd? Or just the officers and authorities who
>> were in command of the situation?
You are looking at this in far too black or white mode.
>> Surely this is the litmus test of who had
>> a part to play - who it is that may be prosecuted.
No, not at all.... a large number of factors came together and a disaster happened.
Some of those factors could be fairly innocent;
1, some could be wholly innocent, but unfortunate behaviour
2, some could me minor anti-social type behaviour, but not illegal;
3, some could involve low scale illegality, but not enough to ever consider prosecution and
4, some could be illegal.
I'm not convinced there was a 4... but that will remain to be seen.
>> Sure, I'll accept the crowd had a part to play, in so far as that
>> part to play only extends to having been there and acted on the instructions of
>> the authorities in good faith.
You've been to plenty of football matches....you said?
>> Any further part to play must then surely fall under
>> the umbrella of the unlawful killing - is that what you're suggesting, WP?
No, see above.
I'll bet that there will be no successful prosecutions for 'unlawful killing'... who are you going to prosecute?
|
>> .. and what is 'my case' so to speak?
Your posts yesterday were pretty explicit in stating you think that the jury got it wrong on question of whether fan behaviour on the day was contributory.
My point last night was simply that the honest and frank account you linked to does not support that proposition.
|
The sentiments contained are very damning regarding the management within SYP at the time. And I dont think there is any argument regarding those observations.
But you cant just pick out the bits that support the notion that it was everyone elses fault but the fans.
“And the fans – yes like all football crowds some of their number were intoxicated. I know because I saw it and we were confiscating beer from vehicles all morning. A huge haul of trays of lager and beer cans which had been brought to drink before the match. This was nothing unusual.
This was the culture at the time and the reason fans were penned in like sheep at all grounds. Their behaviour in the previous decade had necessitated separation because of continued violence. So to say the fans had no responsibility is also wrong. Perhaps on the day the fans did not contribute directly to the 96 deaths but as a group their general behaviour over previous years had led to the point of wire cages on terraces."
|
|
Ultimately this has to come to a close. Direction of blame, perhaps prosecutions, sacrificial lambs and compensation. Millions of pounds spent on inquiries. The sooner a line can be drawn the sooner the whole tragic saga can be confined to the history books.
|
In fairness the 'law' in this case did give them chance to expand on the verdict, ie yes but or no however etc, in that it gave them some grey. They gave none that i saw, it was a definite no.
There may well have been some non mother theresa types, however the jury felt it had no impact on the the deaths.
They heard alot of evidence over their time on the jury, I think for us here it's very difficult to second guess them.
|
>> They heard alot of evidence over their time on the jury, I think for us
>> here it's very difficult to second guess them.
>>
It isn't for me.
Juries don't always get it right.
|
> It isn't for me.
>>
>> Juries don't always get it right.
>>
Well looking at this thread nothing is ever going to change your mind about the fans. So moving on, genuine question, despite the vast amount of information they had why do you think the jury got it wrong about the fans?
Last edited by: sooty123 on Tue 10 May 16 at 17:58
|
>> Well looking at this thread nothing is ever going to change your mind about the
>> fans.
I don't think the fans 'caused' this, but neither do I think that some of them had no role in it whatsoever.... and by that I don't mean criminally or even overly negligently, they were doing what was usual at a football match.
>> So moving on, genuine question, despite the vast amount of information they had why
>> do you think the jury got it wrong about the fans?
>>
There has been a vast amount of hype about this, a tremendous backlash against the earlier findings and cover ups, which IMO has meant an inevitable swing the other way.
Don't forget some of the jurors didn't agree. In a lot of courts 3 jurors disagreeing would have ended it.
When there's a considerable amount of feeling in a subject matter, it's a brave human being that puts his/her head above the parapet and disagrees...peer pressure and all that.
|
I'll take the first bit as a no.
I'm not so sure about that, but i suppose we'll never know. I couldn't find the number on the vote for the question on the fans but if it was as you say 3 that means a third did put their heads above the parapet. Although I'm not sure how risky it was their names aren't likely to be know by very many people?
|
>> I'm not sure how risky it was their names aren't likely to be know
>> by very many people?
>
I didn't mean it in that context... I meant it in sitting down with others, in a situation whereby 96 innocent people have died, their relatives have battled for decades to get to the 'truth', some people in authority have ducked and weaved and covered things up, the Press got things wrong, etc, etc...
... it becomes a sort of inevitable path that you are expected to take.. and if you don't you are 'wrong'.
Who is brave enough to stand up and be counted in that situation?
As it happens, I am...however, I've learnt over the years that most humans prefer going with the herd.
|
... it becomes a sort of inevitable path that you are expected to take.. and
>> if you don't you are 'wrong'.
>>
>> Who is brave enough to stand up and be counted in that situation?
>>
Well we'll never know what happened in their deliberations so it's difficult to say. Of course they could have genuinely thought the verdict they have was right.
As to who would go against the flow, you suggested a third of the jury might well have done?
|
>> I don't think the fans 'caused' this, but neither do I think that some of
>> them had no role in it whatsoever.... and by that I don't mean criminally or
>> even overly negligently, they were doing what was usual at a football match.
If they were doing what was usual the system should have coped. That doesn't just mean the police it means the selection of the ground and the organisers' plans for entry/exit. Hillsborough wan't good enough as a venue. The access passages behind the stands were narrow, ill lit , had limited sight lines and without intervention mislead spectators into one area of the ground. There'd been incidents there before but no mitigation was put in place either by abandoning Hillsborough's use as a 'neutral' ground or using stewards etc deal with it's deficiencies.
>> Don't forget some of the jurors didn't agree. In a lot of courts 3 jurors
>> disagreeing would have ended it.
Red herring. Which part of the verdict featured three dissenters? It was 7:2 for unlawful killing. The coroner was left with nine jurors. Go with their verdicts or back to square one?
|
> Red herring. Which part of the verdict featured three dissenters? It was 7:2 for unlawful
>> killing.
Was it that ratio on every question?
|
>> Was it that ratio on every question?
No I think everything else was unanimous but for some reason, according to the transcript, coroner did not put question is that a verdict of you all? on each and every occasion.
Obviously, given the way the case progressed, he was well aware of any question where the jury was potentially divided.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 10 May 16 at 19:05
|
|
Right cheers, i did wonder as it doesn't say on the bbc.
|
>> If they were doing what was usual the system should have coped. That doesn't just
>> mean the police it means the selection of the ground and the organisers' plans for
>> entry/exit. Hillsborough wan't good enough as a venue. The access passages behind the stands were
>> narrow, ill lit , had limited sight lines and without intervention mislead spectators into one
>> area of the ground. There'd been incidents there before but no mitigation was put in
>> place either by abandoning Hillsborough's use as a 'neutral' ground or using stewards etc deal
>> with it's deficiencies.
Sometimes you get a perfect storm. You have to learn from it, put in measures to prevent it happening again... and move on.
What you don't do is lie about your role in it... or pretend some of the elements that caused that perfect storm didn't really exist.
Many air crashes, for example, occur from little things mixing with other little things. On their own they wouldn't be much of a problem, but combined, they are.
|
> Many air crashes, for example, occur from little things mixing with other little things. On
>> their own they wouldn't be much of a problem, but combined, they are.
>>
Contributory and aggravating factors, are what you are thinking of i think.
|
>> Contributory and aggravating factors, are what you are thinking of i think.
>>
I called it 'having their part to play'.
|
..and I was gently mocking you:)
>>(BT Hub's working great thanks BTW - although it makes my phone think it's up north when I use the BBC Weather app!)
<<
Pleased it works for you but it never did have much of a sense of direction!
Pat
|
>> Near-dictatorship is a better description. A shameful period in our country's social history.
How do you work that one out? She and her party were elected... in a democracy.
It seems to me that some people when confronted with a situation where the 'other team' get in to power, really can't handle it.
|
>> How do you work that one out? She and her party were elected... in a
>> democracy.
See: the election of Hitler. And Mugabe. Dictators don't have to come to power by foul means or inheritance.
>> It seems to me that some people when confronted with a situation where the 'other
>> team' get in to power, really can't handle it.
I'll say it again, I have voted Tory before. I'm not so closed minded that I have a "team". I have contempt and distrust for all the parties, it's just that my levels of contempt and distrust are currently lower for the LibDems, so they usually get my vote.
|
>> >> How do you work that one out? She and her party were elected... in
>> a democracy.
>>
>> See: the election of Hitler. And Mugabe. Dictators don't have to come to power by
>> foul means or inheritance.
>>
What a ridiculous comparison
see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
Godwin's law
|
You think I haven't heard of that?
So argue away if you want to - in what way was Hitler or Mugabe not elected, through a democratic process?
Of course, I only said "near-dictatorship" to start with, but naturally WP only saw what he wanted in that and imagined he had an opportunity to have a go at me. Perhaps it's because his "team" aren't going to win the referendum next month?
Last edited by: Alanović on Fri 6 May 16 at 14:55
|
>> So argue away if you want to - in what way was Hitler or Mugabe
>> not elected, through a democratic process?
How about MT's abilities to continue winning democratic elections... and her eventual ousting?
Then there's the small point of the major differences between Nazi Germany / Mugabe's Zimbabe compared to the ongoing democratic UK.
>> Of course, I only said "near-dictatorship" to start with, but naturally WP only saw what
>> he wanted in that and imagined he had an opportunity to have a go at
>> me.
Don't tar me with your brush, I don't think like that. If you'd posted something half sensible, I'd have agreed with it or green thumbed it.
>> Perhaps it's because his "team" aren't going to win the referendum next month?
>>
See my previous comment.... plus my thoughts on this subject are near those of NoFM2R, so a slight 'In' win won't be the end of the world.
|
>> and her eventual ousting?
You're gonna have to explain how we voted for that one.
>> If you'd posted something half sensible, I'd have agreed with it or green thumbed it.
You think that the only sensible things are those with which you agree? Blimey.
>>so a slight 'In' win won't be the end of the world.
Not been your line thus far, glad you're coming round. I thought you said a Leave vote was the only way of securing the future for your children, but I'm pleased to hear the Remain arguments are evidently sinking in.
|
>> You're gonna have to explain how we voted for that one.
We didn't. However, we live in a democracy that has a system whereby her party could get rid of their leader... unlike true dictators.
>> You think that the only sensible things are those with which you agree? Blimey.
That's how most people work.
>> Not been your line thus far, glad you're coming round. I thought you said a
>> Leave vote was the only way of securing the future for your children, but I'm
>> pleased to hear the Remain arguments are evidently sinking in.
No, yet again you are applying your own twist. I will vote 'out' and that is what I'd prefer. However, as written by NoFM2R a close 'in' passes a message that isn't the end of the world, as long as the committed US of E type people respect the wishes of a great number of UK citizens.
|
>> See: the election of Hitler. And Mugabe. Dictators don't have to come to power by
>> foul means or inheritance.
Have another read of what you have actually typed. Then perhaps you could add to the debate.
Do you really think that an election in this country in the 20th century REALLY compares to Hitler and Mugabe?
|
|
Yes. I don't remember anyone crying foul when Mugabe won, he was welcomed by the world with open arms as a democrat and a force for good in Africa. You're guilty of re-writing history here if you think his subsequent transformation in to dictator was in any way predicted at the time of his election.
|
>> You're
>> guilty of re-writing history here if you think his subsequent transformation in to dictator was
>> in any way predicted at the time of his election.
Where have I ever stated anything near that?
|
Steady, Vić! You're trying too hard here. Mugabe and Hitler both gained power and promptly set about changing the system to ensure they retained it. Thatcher did none of that, beyond the usual adjustment of constituency boundaries to favour her own party that most governing parties do. And when she overreached herself and her support imploded, she accepted the loss of legitimacy and left. That's not the behaviour of a dictator.
That doesn't absolve her from using the police as an instrument of policy, or from allowing them to develop the 'culture of impunity' we've heard about since the Hillsborough verdict.
Last edited by: WillDeBeest on Fri 6 May 16 at 16:17
|
|
Of course, WDB, I didn't accuse Thatcher of being a dictator, but near-dictator. In another time and/or place, I'm sure she'd have emerged as one. But yes, she wasn't, I know that and I said so in the first place, but some of the behaviours of her governance were striking in their similarities to dictatorial behaviour. Which is what I was trying to say in fewer words by saying "near-dictator", but WP got his panties in a bunch and exaggerated what I said. As usual.
|
|
The miners only had themselves to blame. Perhaps if they had used their brains a bit more to think about their future rather than just slavishly followed Scargill's instructions to strike they just may have had a future ! They were unskilled labour who thought they were something special & decided to hold the country to ransom on at least three occasions to try get what they wanted and finally it came back to bite them. You reap what you sow.
|
|
...Except that Scargill was right about the government's intentions towards the pits. As for 'unskilled', Skip ... well, I wouldn't be much good at it. Would you?
|
>> ...Except that Scargill was right about the government's intentions towards the pits.
Scargill did "very nicely" though didn't he. No months without pay for him !
As for 'unskilled Skip ... well, I wouldn't be much good at it. Would you?
Never tried it so couldn't say but i doubt that its rocket science !
|
Well I've been down a pit to the coal face to identify some bearing that needed replacing on a machine in a previous life before I was a lorry driver (Snibson Mine) and there are a whole lot of 'skilled' engineers in there keeping the machinery working and serviceable.
The conditions aren't good and I'd like to bet not many of us would last long working at the coal face on a daily basis.
Pat
|
Depends on what you mean by "miners" and when in time you are talking of.
For my Grandfather's generation it was dirty, dangerous, miserable and painful. The skills they required were largely physical along with courage and determination.
For my Father's generation whilst there were still many miners, there became and increasing amount of engineers and machine operators.
As far as I am aware the technical skills never really exceeded those needed in a typical factory, albeit that it did require a certain personality type to keep doing the job down below.
Still, skilled or not, the point is that their approach to the strike was wrong. Nto to say that others were not also wrong, and that others were not also making mistakes, but the miners were wrong.
Scargill was, and remained, a git. For him it was a power struggle and the miners were merely the tool of the moment.
The time had come for some mines and was soon coming for others. The miners preferred to pretend that was not true, and Scargill was happy to say it was Government lies.
As someone above said, nobody walked away covered in glory, but for my money Scargill was the worst.
|
The time had come for some mines and was soon coming for others. The miners
>> preferred to pretend that was not true, and Scargill was happy to say it was
>> Government lies.
IIRC they had been shutting for years, across the country. Don't think anywhere else had such turmoil though.
|
|
In fact, the earlier Labour government closed more pits than Thatcher's.
|
>> In fact, the earlier Labour government closed more pits than Thatcher's.
Quite true that more closed under Wilson 64-70 then under the 79-92 Conservative Govt. Many of the earlier closures were either very small places and consolidation of operations at bigger 'super pits'. As such miners who wanted to carry on could be redeployed and many older men left the industry voluntarily.
The programme actually went back to the Macmillan era. The old boy closed even more than Wilson.....
Some sites, Primrose Hill in the Gt Preston/Astley area SE of Leeds closed in late sixties is one example, were subsequently excavated by open cast working.
The closures proposed in the eighties and which led to the strike were a large proportion of what was left. Areas and communities were decimated. Completely different kettle of fish
|
>> As far as I am aware the technical skills never really exceeded those needed in
>> a typical factory,
There were of course a massive range of jobs.
Some, sorting coal and tending machines at the surface were unskilled. So were some at the pit bottom and roadways albeit more arduous because of the conditions.
The real skills belonged to those at the coal face. Sure it changed with bigger and better machines but the geological and engineering skills in reading the seam's direction and breadth then extracting it, sometimes with explosives, were considerable.
|
"The real skills belonged to those at the coal face. Sure it changed with bigger and better machines but the geological and engineering skills in reading the seam's direction and breadth then extracting it, sometimes with explosives, were considerable."
Correct.
|
>> The real skills belonged to those at the coal face.
Deep seam coal mining wasn't for the faint-hearted. Short muscular men suited it best, and the ones who survived for any length of time had a very serious esprit de corps... few made old bones. The main reason for that was the machines, which filled the atmosphere with coal dust and gave the miners silicosis.
The lifts were unbelievable. I went down a mine once, and the thing just dropped like a stone. You could feel your feet almost coming off the floor of the lift, until it started to slow down and you got heavy. Same sort of thing coming up, only the other way round.
One could get used to that obviously, but the black lung was another matter.
Gelignite... WHOOOMPH! No wonder criminals loved the stuff.
|
>> Deep seam coal mining wasn't for the faint-hearted. Short muscular men suited it best, and
>> the ones who survived for any length of time had a very serious esprit de
>> corps... few made old bones.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGPSqE74F0Q
|
I used to be responsible for taking new starters at the London HQ on a pit trip so did it a few times. Usually in the Pontefract area. My lasting memory was the really hot air laden with coal dust, which took literally days afterwards to get out of your bodily crevices. They used to like to scare the bods from HQ and once did a controlled detonation of a roof collapse along the side of the (underground) road we were walking along. The noise was unbelievable.
Pits in other areas were cold, or wet. Many different characteristics.
|
>> coal dust, which took literally days afterwards to get out of your bodily crevices.
Brought this joke to mind:
beartales.me/2014/04/12/portrait-of-three-black-men/
|
>There were of course a massive range of jobs.
One of the biggest mistakes of the pit (and steel) closures was the absence of anything to replace the excellent training schemes that they provided. They turned out dozens of skilled tradesmen every year. Sparkies, welders, pipe fitters, tool-makers, machinists and mechanics.
They also trained their own medics, secretaries, HGV drivers etc. etc.
All of that was lost.
|
What change have the Democrats made in Amerika?Is the main thing health care enlighten me,are there any Americans on this forum to explain.
Or is it politics as usual whoever is in power.If you listen to Trump he does sound dangerous but is he.Hillery Clinton is more devious pretending to care.Or maybe I've got it all wrong.
|
Trumpety trump - Armel Coussine
