Bilston Blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 Aug 2009
- Messages
- 1,094
Absolutely, I completely agree what he said in those letters was wrong, but I don't understand his shift in opinion from what he wrote three days after the event to describing tanked up yobs in those letters, because, in my mind certainly, tanked up yobs & hooligans are very similar things. It's here (page 3), written 18th April 1989, that he says "not the result of obvious hooliganism..."But what he is saying is completely and utterly wrong. Looking at all the video/CCTV evidence, few if any fans "turned up late". The vast majority turned up early! Early enough to reasonably expect to be admitted into the ground in good time to catch the kick-off. None of the footage I've seen shows "tanked up yobs" attempting to force their way in. Aside from a bit of jostling and pushing, the Liverpool fans came across to me as well a behaved bunch of fans as you'd expect considering the era that this match took place. Don't get me wrong, in amongst those thousands of fans queuing outside, I'm sure the odd few without tickets would've been amongst them but as every enquiry has proved it wasn't a significant enough a number to affect the outcome on the day.
Why the change in outlook? Was he towing the party line? Was this a case of the government being led by the police (though not the press, certainly) and/or being stubbornly blind to the appeals of the relatives for them to listen to/search for/uncover the truth? Afterall, it's no secret now of the government's thoughts on Liverpool through the '80s; one policy mooted by the tories regarding the problem of Liverpool was to implement a policy of "managed decline", in other words to let the city collapse. Now this was a few years before Hillsborough and the ensuing enquiry and media palaver, but, as proved by the constant (incorrect) references to Heysel when discussing Hillsborough (I mean back then as opposed to now), such a thing as Liverpool's anti-tory, anti-establishment, them v us feeling and the rhetoric coming from that isn't going to be forgotten a couple of years later. The feelings between the city of Liverpool and the government were certainly mutual, and for the government to understand the wrongs of their stance over Hillsborough but sit back and do nothing really shouldn't surprise anyone at all.
Maybe the militant nature of the city really counted against them here. Maybe Thatcher's government found itself in a position, following the tragedy, to gain some sadistic revenge for the militancy Liverpool had shown through the previous twenty years.
So, the government back then: heartless, cruel, wicked; or just shit.
Last edited: