Lucky Toma said:
The Future's Blue said:
I have nothing against Liverpool, or their fans. I have nothing against the Police (I lie), or their fans. However, I like to understand the truth, not some sort of slanted bias.
I've read both reports, in full, and have my view. I have also had (I won't say heated) conversations with an ex-headmaster who was there on the day (who also had children and family there) where I purely based my opinion on what I had read in the media. I was all against the Police and all for the supporters, afterall, I was one of them in that time, yet he made me think, and led me to reading into what the reality was.
A tragic set of events caused by previous wrongs made by many different agencies.
I'll debate with you, or anybody else no further, unless they have read the full reports. And, understood them.
The more pertinent point I would suggest is not whether people have read and understood the full reports but whether anyone has read and understood your posts.
I've read about six or seven and still haven't got a scooby what the hell you're going on about.
Let me explain on his behalf Ste.
Our friend believes that Liverpool fans 'rushed' the gate and that there were a huge number who were drunk and without tickets. He doesn't accept that they were mainly just fans with tickets who were anxious to get into a ground where the turnstiles were inadequate to deal with the flow and they were getting crushed. He doesn't seem to take into account that there were drunk fans without tickets at every big game and there will continue to be. There will be drunk City fans in Madrid next Tuesday without tickets. But he ignores that and legitimises the deaths of 96 people as being a direct consequence of those fans who'd had a few and didn't have tickets.
He doesn't accept that the failure of the police to repeat the operation of the year before, when they actively managed the flow of fans down Leppings Lane and prevented such a build up played any part in causing that crush.
He also believes that the Taylor Report was politically motivated in order to ensure the problem of football hooliganism was eliminated. Now he has a fair point there about the Final Report but it doesn't address the core issue of why 96 people died at Hillsborough, which was addressed in the Interim Report.
He doesn't accept the bald facts uncovered in the Interim Taylor Report because he spoke to one man who presumably told him something about drunken, rampaging Liverpool fans (although he hasn't got the balls to actually say this on the forum). He therefore chooses to believe anything in Taylor that refers to the fans' behaviour without looking at the overall context and timeline.
And then he has the cheek to tell us he's open-minded and we are the ones who have made up our minds.