• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Hillsborough Disaster

scaramanga said:
I'm not sure if I've misunderstood what you're saying here or if one or both of us has misunderstood galeforce, but I don't get what you mean there.

As for acceptable life conduct, that's pretty simple really. Work hard, get paid whatever the rarity of your skills require. Don't expect a living to be given to you - especially not from those you claim to dislike intensely due to some ridiculous reverse snobbery. Not much to it.
Click to expand...

I agree with the second part. I'm not sure who wouldn't in the terms you've set there mate...
 
scaramanga said:
I'm not sure what you're accusing them of here, not having a safety certificate or having an old one? You seem a little unsure yourself.

Does anyone here know how often a safety certificate is meant to be issued? I did some brief searching and there's not much to be found, but I get the distinct impression that they get issued when a stand/ground is substantially altered and that certificate covers the life of that stand/ground. In which case, the question becomes more about when the ground was last altered.
Click to expand...

After the 1981 fiasco at Hillsborough, additional safety improvement works were eventually carried out there. As per one of the press extracts I put in my previous post, the civil engineering contractor/engineers in Sheffield that project managed this was Eastwoods. After this work was done, a new safety certificate was needed since it was safety work that had been carried out. Surely this invalidated the old certificate. The fact that a new one was not issued is where the legal eagles of the Liverpool families group will surely be looking, now, for negligence angles, and manslaughter I believe.

If there was no certificate that was valid (and therefore, no certificate), then there surely should not have even been a marbles match held at Hillsborough with any kind of fee paying audience in attendance.

What I find odd is the statement used that the certificate was invalid since 1979? The safety improvement work was done in the mid 1980's, IIRC. So from then on the certificate was out of date and therefore invalid. But from 1979 up to the improvement work it was valid? Whatever, it wasn't valid in 1989. So SWFC, Sheffield City Council and the FA did not play their part properly, and I guess its up to the legal people to prove their level of responsibility and liability. What irks me is how they have not been brought to book long ago.
 
Eriktheviking said:
It has become part of Liverpools marketing. It is their way of building a them vs us mentality. Like its an exclusive club. Its now played as a sympathy card to which you can never dare to question.

You also never hear of Heysel disaster mentioned by the Liverpool fans.

I am personally of the opinion that dirty laundry shouldnt be put out in public.

96 died with 1000s scarred for life. I cant imagine the pain of the friends and relatives but grieve in piece and not make every club and person follow suit. Respects should be paid voluntarily.
Click to expand...

I live in a neighborhood full of Italian immigrants, many of whom are Juventus fans, and I work around a few more. All of them utterly disgusted that Liverpool fans aren't properly criticised by the British media for their actions that awful day at the Heysel. Many feel the UK media are intimidated by the aggressive manner that Liverpool fans exhibit in reaction to any criticism directed toward them. They're also ****ed off that, domestic rivalries being what they are, other Italian clubs didn't speak up more strongly about the incident.
 
Sheffield Spur said:
After the 1981 fiasco at Hillsborough, additional safety improvement works were eventually carried out there. As per one of the press extracts I put in my previous post, the civil engineering contractor/engineers in Sheffield that project managed this was Eastwoods. After this work was done, a new safety certificate was needed since it was safety work that had been carried out. Surely this invalidated the old certificate. The fact that a new one was not issued is where the legal eagles of the Liverpool families group will surely be looking, now, for negligence angles, and manslaughter I believe.

If there was no certificate that was valid (and therefore, no certificate), then there surely should not have even been a marbles match held at Hillsborough with any kind of fee paying audience in attendance.

What I find odd is the statement used that the certificate was invalid since 1979? The safety improvement work was done in the mid 1980's, IIRC. So from then on the certificate was out of date and therefore invalid. But from 1979 up to the improvement work it was valid? Whatever, it wasn't valid in 1989. So SWFC, Sheffield City Council and the FA did not play their part properly, and I guess its up to the legal people to prove their level of responsibility and liability. What irks me is how they have not been brought to book long ago.
Click to expand...

Ah, that makes more sense if there were some changes made - that would fit in with what I've read about the requirements.

The next question, I suppose is why were those safety updates considered enough when they weren't safe?
 
No matter how many enquiries, how many minutes silence, how many armbands are worn, they will never bring back those who died. As with all sad losses grieve and move on not wallow in some self-glorifying pity.
 
thfcsteff said:
Remember who you have to thank for that happening, and remember how well it fits in with the financial side of football…lovely lady that she was…never also ignore the fact that between her and the red-tops, England and English fans were re-cast as enormous vile savages with no comparison anywhere else, despite blaring proof to the contrary. Those factors did as much as anything to contribute. I would love to be able to stand at matches again, but I don't blame the Taylor Report more than I blame the 'egregious political aims' (or whatever that phrase was) which sat behind it all...
Click to expand...


My word...... and that from a man that use to run with the BOYS....... ???

Football fans were savages, there i've said it, show me your proof they weren't and i'll tell you many a story of having friends that were in so called crews and liked to large it on away days, liked to cut someone up etc. Your telling me Chelsea fans weren't savages, Leeds fans were nice friendly chaps were they, what about Millwall, West Ham...... What do you call groups of grown men that have decent jobs, families, kids that want to run amock in towns, or disgrace themselves and the rest of us abroad.

Your one of the better posters on here but your seriously deluded by your liberal/left bias and anti Thatcher retoric.

Anyone who thinks that going to football now isn't a safer, more pleasant experience for women, kids and men that don't want to act like a set of wan.kers either wasn't there in the 80's or is just thick and ignorant.

And we should thank Thatcher for that.......
 
RomanzoCriminale said:
My word...... and that from a man that use to run with the BOYS....... ???

Football fans were savages, there i've said it, show me your proof they weren't and i'll tell you many a story of having friends that were in so called crews and liked to large it on away days, liked to cut someone up etc. Your telling me Chelsea fans weren't savages, Leeds fans were nice friendly chaps were they, what about Millwall, West Ham...... What do you call groups of grown men that have decent jobs, families, kids that want to run amock in towns, or disgrace themselves and the rest of us abroad.

Your one of the better posters on here but your seriously deluded by your liberal/left bias and anti Thatcher retoric.

Anyone who thinks that going to football now isn't a safer, more pleasant experience for women, kids and men that don't want to act like a set of wan.kers either wasn't there in the 80's or is just thick and ignorant.

And we should thank Thatcher for that.......
Click to expand...

First of all, thank you so much for your kind compliment re: my posting. An honour.

You have obviously mis-read what I said. Let me try again (I might not have been clear TBF)…


I said >>'England and English fans were re-cast as enormous vile savages with no comparison anywhere else, despite blaring proof to the contrary'

You took this to mean that I was suggesting there were no 'vile savages'…what I was saying was that OUR 'vile savages' 'supposedly' had no like ANYWHERE ELSE despite 'BLARING PROOF TO THE CONTRARY'…you don't think Italy, Germany and Holland to name three didn't have enormous hooligan issues too? It was an INTERNATIONAL ISSUE AT THE TIME, not JUST an 'English' or 'British' issue. THAT was my point.
Again, I understand if you misread it, but please, don't mis-understand my point. And yes. I firmly believe there was financial motivation behind the findings of the Taylor Report. If it was altruistic behaviour, why didn't any of this happen after Heysel? Or even Ibrox in 1970 for that matter?



Now, onto other business at hand…

1) Nope. But they were all around.

2) What do I call them? macarons. Just like you. But if you think it was purely a symptom of football then you, Sir, are the deluded one. do you remember the 70s? I suspect you do.

3) Who's arguing with the safety factor? Who'd denying that? You've lost the plot of your 'argument'…this is not about 'safety' it's about corporatisation. Now, if you subscribe to the fact that this was happening across the board everywhere anyway, then fine. I PERSONALLY believe people can stand at football matches providing the appropriate safety measures are executed.

In response to your last line, I won't be thanking her. You will. All's good. Just understand the point I'm making before disagreeing with it! :lol:
 
scaramanga said:
Liverpool!
Click to expand...

The club? The people? Every person in 'Liverpool'? Merseyside generally? Stretching to the Wirral? How about Chester? Where does this 'border of disgraceful behaviour' begin and end? Perhaps if you define it, visas can be issued and you can do yourself the mighty favor of never having to get one :lol: I can only imagine if it was revealed Sherwood was a scouser!!!! ;)

Needless to say old friend, we agree to disagree…or just disagree!!!
 
scaramanga said:
Ah, that makes more sense if there were some changes made - that would fit in with what I've read about the requirements.

The next question, I suppose is why were those safety updates considered enough when they weren't safe?
Click to expand...

Good question, and one I cannot answer personally. I have my suspicions.

From what I have heard/read, the Chairman of SWFC at the time didn't have a high regard of football fans. Especially if it was going to cost him any money. The SWFC chairman at the time of 1981 and the subsequent 'safety improvements', plus up to 1989, was Bert McGee. A previous post of mine - with quote from the press - illustrates this callous attitude. He came across to me as a 'where there's muck, there's brass' Yorkshire businessman, from memory. He made me think of the businessman in Golden Gordon, the classic episode of Michael Palin's wonderful Ripping Yarns. "Have you ever considered a career in scrap, Gordon?"

Eastwoods, who project managed the safety improvements at Hillsborough in the 1980's, must have had responsibility over the work done, at the time. it was part of their role. They must have been insured, for starters. I am very reliably informed that the offices of Eastwoods in Nether Edge, Sheffield were burning the midnight lamp on the day of the disaster. I wonder why? Were the safety improvements carried out 'unsafe'? Changes were made to the Leppings Lane end, including barrier work. Whether they were deemed 'safe' at the time by any kind of independant assessment and /or inspection, I don't know. They sure should have been, surely. Or was that part of the safety certificate process..... a certificate they never got. But if no revised safety certificate was issued, then why not? It is roundly reported that one was not issued. Were inspections carried out? Or not? Who should do that part of the work (Sheffield City Council dept, I believe). It is very, very murky water indeed. Was it incompetence? Was it an oversight?

This story will run and run because there are more questions than answers.

Maybe Eastwoods should be added to the trio of SWFC, Sheffield City Council and the FA. I simply cannot believe they have all got out of it scot-free with no repercussion of any magnitude.

I suspect freemasonry in Sheffield is heavily involved in the aftermath of Hillsborough, incorporating certain golf clubs. Select people looking after 'collective interests'.
 
Sheffield Spur said:
Good question, and one I cannot answer personally. I have my suspicions.

From what I have heard/read, the Chairman of SWFC at the time didn't have a high regard of football fans. Especially if it was going to cost him any money. The SWFC chairman at the time of 1981 and the subsequent 'safety improvements', plus up to 1989, was Bert McGee. A previous post of mine - with quote from the press - illustrates this callous attitude. He came across to me as a 'where there's muck, there's brass' Yorkshire businessman, from memory. He made me think of the businessman in Golden Gordon, the classic episode of Michael Palin's wonderful Ripping Yarns. "Have you ever considered a career in scrap, Gordon?"

Eastwoods, who project managed the safety improvements at Hillsborough in the 1980's, must have had responsibility over the work done, at the time. it was part of their role. They must have been insured, for starters. I am very reliably informed that the offices of Eastwoods in Nether Edge, Sheffield were burning the midnight lamp on the day of the disaster. I wonder why? Were the safety improvements carried out 'unsafe'? Changes were made to the Leppings Lane end, including barrier work. Whether they were deemed 'safe' at the time by any kind of independant assessment and /or inspection, I don't know. They sure should have been, surely. Or was that part of the safety certificate process..... a certificate they never got. But if no revised safety certificate was issued, then why not? It is roundly reported that one was not issued. Were inspections carried out? Or not? Who should do that part of the work (Sheffield City Council dept, I believe). It is very, very murky water indeed. Was it incompetence? Was it an oversight?

This story will run and run because there are more questions than answers.

Maybe Eastwoods should be added to the trio of SWFC, Sheffield City Council and the FA. I simply cannot believe they have all got out of it scot-free with no repercussion of any magnitude.

I suspect freemasonry in Sheffield is heavily involved in the aftermath of Hillsborough, incorporating certain golf clubs. Select people looking after 'collective interests'.
Click to expand...

As ever mate, superb contributions.
 
thfcsteff said:
=D>…brought a much needed chuckle to this thread.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with him.

We need to pinpoint it a little closer though, then we can build a wall and declare it part of Ireland. Watch all the UK house prices shoot up when we do.
 
scaramanga said:
I'd agree with him.

We need to pinpoint it a little closer though, then we can build a wall and declare it part of Ireland. Watch all the UK house prices shoot up when we do.
Click to expand...

:ross:

...even my Irish mammy would laugh at that! To be fair, given that they were Keano's 'boyhood favorites' I suppose there's a chance you'd get away with it!!!!!

I have to ask...you DO like The Beatles don't you?
 
thfcsteff said:
:ross:

...even my Irish mammy would laugh at that! To be fair, given that they were Keano's 'boyhood favorites' I suppose there's a chance you'd get away with it!!!!!

I have to ask...you DO like The Beatles don't you?
Click to expand...

No no no! I'm a Stones man
 
scaramanga said:
No no no! I'm a Stones man
Click to expand...

Aaarrggghhhh!!!

THAT'S the problem here!

The Beatles = geniuses
The Who = incredible
The Stones = average

…you really don't like The Beatles?

I mean look, when it comes to comedy, I'll grant you that the region has produced poor poor and highly aggravating stand-us such as Tarbuck/Cannon & Ball/Tarbuck/Boardman…

…but music? THE BEATLES? INCREDIBLE! Pretend they're from Gerrard's Cross, oops, I meant Windsor!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back