Hillsborough

[G]

Well it is safe too say that they will make cunts out of themselves at anfield next week as I fully expect the chants too be much worse and lets see what excuses they come up with then.

I really hope our own don't respond in kind. The press are finally seeing them for what they are.

Any misdemeanour on our part next week will give them the perfect excuse to say we are as bad as each other. Even the booing of Evra will be used to turn the heat back on us as a bunch of racists.

Next week sing about us and **** them cunts.

[ChesterDave]

I think our fans will be too busy singing about JFT96 to respond with anything tasteless.

[Shaggy]

Really shouldn't boo Evra next week. Hopefully he'll be left out again.

[Assassin]

I think our fans will be too busy singing about JFT96 to respond with anything tasteless.

This should be the reply to anything the low lifers come up with. We must not get dragged into the gutter with them

[G]

Yep

After all their bad press this week they'll be doing their utmost to drag us into the mire with them.


Singing JFT96 to anything will drive them insane

[malg]

You stay Classy Sheffield

http://www.owlstalk.co.uk/forums/index.php?/topic/179582-liverpool-flying-a-flag/

Some beaut of a wednesday fan



He can **** right off the blame has been levelled at the wrong people for 23 years and their ****ty club, council and police have now been exposed. I hope they are always reminded of what the club have done.

Some scum ****ers on that site. ****e clubs ****e city.

[Assassin]

Yep

After all their bad press this week they'll be doing their utmost to drag us into the mire with them.


Singing JFT96 to anything will drive them insane

IMO this is the only way. I hope everybody else who is there will be thinking and singing the same

[Leyton388]

From another forum on other fans throwing Heysel ito the argument.

I've had a few people say to me "what about justice for the 39?" and I've thrown it back in their faces. My first question is always "what justice do you want?". This, without fail, gets them mumbling and stumbling over their answers as they haven't thought about it. Rather, they've just use it as a dig.

Next, I say "I suppose you want someone to go to jail for it?" which sets them off, without fail, on a further rant that Liverpool fans should go to jail. The rest then is very easy to make them look like the bitter dicks they are.

**** them and their bitterness. Blind their hatred with facts.

Thats exactly the **** thats doing my head right now

Liverpool fans jailed - Check
Belgian FA Prosecuted -Check
Belgian Police Prosecuted -Check
Compensation to victims - Check

None of these cunts either know or care about this ..they just want to toss out mindless rhetoric that they've read in a ragloid or heard in the pub.Pure lazy can't be arsed checking it attuitudes from far too many.Read any opposition club website and it'll be littered with that attitude.Ditto with any of the Irish football websites .This weeks been incredible that the worldwide media has gotton through to a huge percentage of people who simply did not understand Hillsborough,but theres a large volume of football fans ,the very people who should know better ,that are still clinging to their beliefs and its tribal led rather than anything related to the disaster.

[Leyton388]

He has to go now!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/did-sir-norman-bettison-try-to-smear-hillsborough-inquest-judge-8142451.html

Sir Norman Bettison triggered an attempt by South Yorkshire Police to prosecute the High Court judge who led the original Hillsborough inquiry in 1989 over claims that he had blamed the force for the disaster even before he began his investigation.

In what was last night condemned as another "black propaganda" operation, senior officers considered charging Lord Justice Taylor with perverting the course of justice after a police driver claimed he had overheard the judge state that the South Yorkshire force would have to carry the can for the catastrophe, which claimed Sir Norman Bettison triggered an attempt by South Yorkshire Police to prosecute the High Court judge who led the original Hillsborough inquiry in 1989 over claims that he had blamed the force for the disaster even before he began his investigation.

In what was last night condemned as another "black propaganda" operation, senior officers considered charging Lord Justice Taylor with perverting the course of justice after a police driver claimed he had overheard the judge state that the South Yorkshire force would have to carry the can for the catastrophe, which claimed the lives of 96 Liverpool fans in April 1989.

But although the alleged conversation took place only three days after the disaster, the driver waited a year to "put the record straight" over the "injustice" suffered by the force. Documents published by the Hillsborough Independent Panel last week show that he only reported the allegations after he was "encouraged" to do so by his colleague Norman Bettison – then a key figure in a South Yorkshire Police unit that attempted to exonerate the force and blame Liverpool fans for the tragedy.

Sir Norman, who was knighted in 2006 and now serves as West Yorkshire's chief constable, faced calls to resign last week after the panel's report was published – and he gave an initial response that appeared once more to push some of the blame on to fans. It was announced yesterday that he had been referred to the police watchdog by his own police authority, after it had received a complaint related to Hillsborough.

The police driver's accusation of prejudice against one of the most well-regarded judges in the country was taken so seriously that the South Yorkshire chief constable travelled to London to discuss potential charges with the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), claiming that: "My greatest wish is that the truth is served."

"The idea that the police would question the integrity of a High Court judge, let alone press charges against him, beggars belief," said Louise Ellman, now MP for Liverpool Riverside. "We have already seen evidence of this type of black propaganda. It shows the depths some people were willing to go to in order to shift the blame from themselves."

The independent panel's report last week vindicated victims' families, who had insisted the police, not the fans, were responsible for the disaster. It found that police and emergency services had made "strenuous attempts" to deflect blame on to fans. More than 160 police statements were changed, 116 of them to remove or alter "unfavourable" comments about the policing of the match and the unfolding disaster.

But among the thousands of documents was a confidential file detailing allegations from the unnamed officer who drove the judge and the then West Midlands chief constable, Geoffrey Dear – who was also investigating the tragedy – to the Hillsborough stadium three days after the disaster.

The DPP at the time advised there was no case to answer. Despite this and dismissals by both Lord Justice Taylor and Mr Dear when the allegations were put to them by a senior official of the Home Office, the file was deemed so sensitive that it was kept in a safe for several years with a note warning that a leak of the details "could prove highly embarrassing for all parties".

[Exiled_red]

Sadly I think you're right, i expect Hillsborugh chants and references to Hysel as well.

I hope we don't retaliate with anything about Munich and take the high ground.

[G]

Olly Kay did an excellent article on the "Justice for Heysel" stuff yesterday.

[Shaggy]

Olly Kay did an excellent article on the "Justice for Heysel" stuff yesterday.

In the paper? Obviously they have a paywall - could you post it here if it's knocking around?

[Exiled_red]

In the paper? Obviously they have a paywall - could you post it here if it's knocking around?

I assume this is it:

http://pastebin.com/dRvQbFR7

[G]

Yeah thats the one

[Exiled_red]

In that case I'll paste it here as well in case people can't see the link

Warped tribalism insults forgotten victims

Oliver Kay - The Times - September 15, 2012

Now that the lies and cruel myths about the Hillsborough disaster have been exposed once and for all, those who clung to them out of warped tribalism have but one straw left to clutch. “What about justice for Heysel?”, they plead. “What about the truth of what happened there?”

Actually, they have a point, even if they raise it out of malice rather than consideration for the bereaved. Questions remain unanswered about the Heysel Stadium disaster, in which 39 spectators — 32 from Italy, four from Belgium, two from France, one from Northern Ireland — were killed in a stampede before the 1985 European Cup final between Liverpool and Juventus. While those bereaved and outraged by Hillsborough have fought to keep their campaign for justice alive and been entirely vindicated for doing so, Heysel remains the tragedy that dares not speak its name.

So let us talk about it. Let us state a few of the facts about whether justice was done.
We all know that English football, collectively, was punished, with clubs excluded from Uefa competition. Liverpool immediately withdrew, in disgrace, from the next season’s Uefa Cup. Within hours the FA, under pressure from the Government, announced that no English club would play in the next season’s European competition. Two days later Uefa, European football’s governing body, announced an indefinite ban on English clubs. It ended up at five years, with Liverpool serving a sixth as punishment for their supporters’ behaviour at Heysel.

This was not a kneejerk reaction to a one-off night of mayhem. This — both the sanction and, it could be argued, the widespread loss of life — had been coming. Heysel was the disgraceful culmination of more than a decade of ugly incidents involving English supporters on their European travels: Tottenham Hotspur in Rotterdam in 1974 and 1983, Leeds United in Paris in 1975, Manchester United in Saint-Étienne in 1977, the national team in Basle in 1981 and so on until the spiral of depravity reached its tragic conclusion — logical in one sense, crazy in all others — in Brussels.

As to whether individuals were brought to account, 27 arrests were made on suspicion of manslaughter and 26 men were charged. (These, incidentally, do not tend to be described as Liverpool supporters — in part because of claims at the time from John Smith, the club’s chairman, and two Merseyside councillors that National Front members from London had been responsible. There are many sensitive issues here, but let us not pussyfoot over this one. As Tony Evans, Times football editor and author of Far Foreign Land, a brilliant book about his experiences following Liverpool at Heysel and all over Europe, put it: “It was a red herring. Hooligans from the far right would not have been welcome.”) The prosecutions stemmed from television camera footage of the charge — the third such charge in a matter of minutes — that led directly to the deaths of those 39 innocent spectators. There are dozens of points that are usually offered to explain the context, but the context does not begin to excuse anything. No amount of context could. That stampede might have been considered standard terrace fare, a token act of territorialism and intimidation, but it led innocent fans to flee in terror. Some tried to climb a wall to escape. The wall crumbled. Thirty-nine people were crushed to death. The world was appalled. Turin went into mourning. Liverpool and their supporters were left with the stigma and the stain.

As for “justice”, an initial inquiry by Marina Coppieters, a leading Belgian judge, found after 18 months that the police and the authorities, in addition to Liverpool supporters, should face charges. Quite apart from the hooliganism, ticketing arrangements and police strategy and responses were criticised. By this stage, English supporters were regarded across Europe as such animals that shock was expressed at how the authorities had played into the hands of the troublemakers.

There was bewilderment, too, at the choice of stadium. And where have you heard that before? Uefa chose a ground that had been built in the 1920s and condemned in the early 1980s for failing to meet modern safety standards.

Evans recalls that the outer wall, made of cinder block, was decaying, that he was not required to show his ticket and that, long before the stampede, he saw a crash barrier in front of him crumble.

Jacques Georges, the Uefa president at the time, and Hans Bangerter, his general secretary, were threatened with imprisonment but eventually given conditional discharges. Albert Roosens, the former secretary-general of the Belgian Football Union (BFU), was given a six-month suspended prison sentence for “regrettable negligence” with regard to ticketing arrangements. So was Johan Mahieu, who was in charge of policing the stands at Heysel. “He made fundamental errors,” Pierre Verlynde, the judge, said. “He was far too passive. I find his negligence extraordinary.”

In 1989, after a five-month trial in Brussels, 14 of the 26 Liverpool supporters who stood trial were found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and given a three-year prison sentence, 18 months of which was suspended, and each ended up serving about a year behind bars. The remaining ten defendants were acquitted of manslaughter, but some had their £2,000 bail money confiscated, having been absent for part of the trial. And civil damages estimated at more than £5 million were provisionally awarded to families of the Heysel victims against the convicted fans and the BFU.

You never hear of this because the tragedy is taboo. It was only brought into the open when the clubs were drawn together in the quarter-finals of the Champions League in 2005. Liverpool, after consultation with their Italian counterparts, announced it would be a game of “friendship”. Before the first leg at Anfield, Liverpool supporters held up a mosaic to form the word “amicizia”. Some of the visiting Juventus fans applauded. Most, it seemed, turned their backs in disgust.

Heysel is an unspeakably awkward subject for Liverpool — perhaps more, perhaps less, for the anguish the club and the city endured four years later at Hillsborough. But they do at least now have a memorial plaque at Anfield, they do have extensive coverage of the tragedy on their official website and they do pay tribute on May 30 every year, even if it took far too long for the club to recognise the tragedy and the stain it had left — not unlike Sheffield Wednesday with Hillsborough. None of this diminishes Liverpool’s or their supporters’ right to grieve or complain at what happened four years later.

The real mystery is that Heysel is even more of a taboo in Turin. Go on to the Italian club’s official website in search of a tribute and you will find merely 106 words within a 645-word article called “Juventus wins everything”. “The long-awaited success in Europe’s highest accolade was tainted with sadness” . . .
“Something unexplainable happened … and 39 innocent victims lost their lives. Football, from that moment, would never be the same again.” … “It’s a joyless success, but the victory enabled the Bianconeri to fly to Tokyo in winter to play the Intercontinental Cup final. Argentinos Junior were beaten on penalties and Juve were the world champions.”

Is that it? No wonder the Association for the Victims of Heysel has felt hurt by Juventus’s reluctance to acknowledge what happened on the night they won the European Cup for the first time. Justice for Heysel? There can never be justice for 39 lives lost at a football match, but it is in Turin, not on Merseyside, that the cries of the bereaved are met with silence. The families do not want their lost ones to become a cause célèbre in England, where the purpose is purely to score points on the terraces. A little recognition closer to home is what they want.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/columnists/kay/article3539157.ece