why the media cannot EVER be trusted

by Victorismyhero Wed Apr 27, 2016 8:42 pm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36149489

"Do I wish to God I hadn't done that front page? Yes."

Kelvin Mackenzie is a man of bullish self-confidence; the former editor of the Sun who, in 1989, laid out a front page splash telling us "The Truth" behind Hillsborough. It claimed some fans picked pockets of victims, urinated on police officers and beat up one officer as he gave the kiss of life. Almost every word has turned out to be untrue. There was, at the end of his brief interview with BBC TV today, a slight tremor in his voice as he admitted that "there has been collateral damage".

The infamous front page which blamed the fans for the Hillsborough tragedy was not just an insult to the victims and a stupefying journalistic failure, it has become the public symbol of the lies at the heart of the cover-up.

If you want to understand its power and significance have look at the front page of the Metro. The layout is a copy of the Sun from 1989.

So when today's Sun and the Times front pages were released on the day after the verdict with no mention of Hillsborough on the front page and a single word tweet "unbelievable" appeared from Tony Barrett, the Times Liverpool football writer, most drew the same conclusion. It appeared that the topic of Hillsborough had become so toxic for Rupert Murdoch's newspapers that they were incapable of covering what was without any doubt the biggest story of the day on a front page.

Disgusting, and the people behind it will crawl under their rocks and behind their powerful friends and hide.....

by Guest Wed Apr 27, 2016 9:05 pm

Gut wrenching sad, isn't it; that the very fabric of material we 'john q public' rely on for our news has become nothing more then the basic tabloid trash that we've tried to avoid.

Several years ago this was such a shocking event with the plagiarized article for a couple well known newspapers - a media TV program showing a news castors erroneous claims for war torn statements {supposedly taken} service in locations he'd never been close too...and then the Gallup Polls >

why the media cannot EVER be trusted Wszjlrpv10c_r2ohr_tb3g

why the media cannot EVER be trusted Wszjlrpv10c_r2ohr_tb3g

Yes, indeed...news sells and the editors seem to have become the 'GOTCHA' hysteria driven thinkers for what they see fit for our front pages.
Now is that because their collective backsides are on the firing lines for 'profits' or they just stopped caring and sign off on anything that flutters across their desks that appears to be news worthy? Suspect

I fear what is to become of National Geographic, now that Richard Murdock has controlling ownership of that publication. Yes, it was in dire need of those mega bucks to instill some energy and keep it afloat...but will it mean the decline in the quality of the publication from it's history why the media cannot EVER be trusted 2190311264

why the media cannot EVER be trusted 2190311264

by Raggamuffin Wed Apr 27, 2016 9:08 pm

I really don't understand what this "cover up" consists of. The facts about Hillsborough have been known for years haven't they? I'm sure I read years ago that the gate had been opened by the police because of the situation outside the pitch.

Whatever the findings of the jury, fans did rush into that tunnel even though it was full and shoved their way through so that others died.

by eddie Wed Apr 27, 2016 9:10 pm

It's becoming increasingly hard to ever take some of these publications seriously, and this is what I mean when I say, I always doubt what I read and keep an open mind to possibilities.

I remember reading that Sun article , I was 19 years old when that front page reported that, and I was gullible and I believed it.
Newpapers print the story, newspapers print the truth.

Then you wise up when you realise that every other thing you read contradicts itself.

by Guest Wed Apr 27, 2016 10:15 pm

His book '935 LIES' & 'Counter Punch' ought to be mandatory reading for any middle school aged group; while I'm in full support of the classics --- our children need a full dose of reality to 'wake the hell up' and the earlier the better, IMO!

The Decline of America’s Moral Integrity
by Charles R. Larson August 8, 2014
Charles Lewis’s chilling account of the mendacity of our leaders (beginning during the Vietnam War and concluding with the Bush/Cheney elective war in Iraq) will come as no revelation to readers of Counter Punch, though some of the surprising details he uncovers—along with his overview of the time involved—make 935 Lies required reading. Lewis’s title refers to something at the end of the sequence, not the beginning.
****
Liars & Their Totals > The winner is George Bush, with a whopping 260 lies; followed by Powell, with 254; Rumsfeld, with 109; Fleischer, at 109; Wolfowitz, 85; Rice, 56; Cheney, 48; and McClellan, 14. The only surprise here is Cheney’s low number, but it is clear that if the chart were continued until today, Cheney would be the winner.
****
Lewis provides an interesting question. Are these people so delusional that they actually believe what they say? If so, why do Americans keep electing madmen as their leaders?
****
A second truth chart shows just how many times during the past seventy-five years it took forever to get action about issues that were harming all of us—asbestos, lead paint poisoning, black lung disease, tobacco, agent orange, to mention only five.
****
Lewis’s take on journalists and their reluctance to pursue corporate malfeasance is particularly hopeless. Big corporations have so much money that they can undertake massive lawsuits against newspapers, knowing quite well that the newspapers cannot afford to fight back. There’s the additional conflict of lost revenue from corporate advertising that further compromises what gets published in the first place. Thus, few newspapers are willing to enter into what may be a prolonged battle against unlimited corporate money. He cites, however, the Readers’ Digest as an interesting exception to anti-smoking articles. For years (until it ran into its own financial limitations), the Readers’ Digest printed no advertising, so there was no worry about lost income from the tobacco companies. This revealing chapter also includes an overview of the corporate smear campaign against Rachel Carson before and after the publication of Silent Spring.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/08/08/the-decline-of-americas-moral-integrity/

As my parents generation enjoyed the 'sans cigarette' ads in those little magazines that would fit into a pocket book or a lunch box --- easy reading and handy to carry.
RD published many a factual story line free lance article for journalist finding and showing the light of waste and corruption to the public.
Long before '60 Minutes' and their TV program epoxied the corporate abuses and toxic problems that our government was hiding from all of us.
Our news printed papers should be trusted...but sadly I don't think that they are anymore. Suspect

by Guest Wed Apr 27, 2016 10:22 pm

I never trust anything when I know that it is

a) probably in the interest of the media
b) probably in the interest of the government
c) probably in the interest of big business
d) probably in the interest of another government seeking to influence

Just about covers everyone really.

by eddie Wed Apr 27, 2016 10:23 pm

That's a pretty accurate description actually.

by Ben Reilly Wed Apr 27, 2016 11:00 pm

One example condemns journalism as a practice and the media as an industry? Sheez, might as well shut down NewsFix, then ...

by Guest Wed Apr 27, 2016 11:03 pm

No, not journalism, because there are plents of independent journalists out there doing a fantastic job of trying to get the truth home. But newspapers that are run by people like Murdock, who have and agenda to make sure what they want happens and use their newspapers as a tool, they are not to be trusted.

Even the BBC News is not run by George Osborne's best mate, and it shows.

by HoratioTarr Wed Apr 27, 2016 11:04 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:I really don't understand what this "cover up" consists of. The facts about Hillsborough have been known for years haven't they? I'm sure I read years ago that the gate had been opened by the police because of the situation outside the pitch.

Whatever the findings of the jury, fans did rush into that tunnel even though it was full and shoved their way through so that others died.

If the football club hadn't erected those metal fences, those people might be alive today.

by Victorismyhero Wed Apr 27, 2016 11:12 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:One example condemns journalism as a practice and the media as an industry? Sheez, might as well shut down NewsFix, then ...

No, but we are in a state where if I want the truth about a british story i read a french or dutch news site, and so on

and I NEVER listen to fox news about ANYTHING. ANYWHERE.....

by Victorismyhero Wed Apr 27, 2016 11:22 pm

actually Ben...I feel for you....

being an honest upright journalist in todays media world must be like being a truely genuine compassionate and caring priest, who actually follws the tenets of faith ......

in fact it must be a worse position even , than the mythical "honest politician"

by Guest Wed Apr 27, 2016 11:27 pm

Absolutely agree Vic.

by Guest Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:30 am

Lord Foul wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:One example condemns journalism as a practice and the media as an industry? Sheez, might as well shut down NewsFix, then ...

No, but we are in a state where if I want the truth about a british story i read a french or dutch news site, and so on

and I NEVER listen to fox news about ANYTHING. ANYWHERE.....

Quite a few of us over here refer to that broad cast as 'Faux News'; since they really don't hire any true journalist but only entertainment type of 'talking air heads' Twisted Evil

I've looked - I read the link and I'm really wondering what the editor based his decision on for this front page section >

It claimed some fans picked pockets of victims, urinated on police officers and beat up one officer as he gave the kiss of life. Almost every word has turned out to be untrue. There was, at the end of his brief interview with BBC TV today, a slight tremor in his voice as he admitted that "there has been collateral damage".

They didn't have any viable source that they'd quoted for those 'purely fabricated' actions that he placed on the front page? OMG...put himself quite efficiently out on that limb and sawed it off right behind himself!
WHAT A FOOL and job terminating too Evil or Very Mad

My opinions about America's media news programs went adrift shortly after the Nixon era and those methods used to subvert the dead body counts coming in from Viet Nam --- and I don't trust many of our current talking heads; they just don't have that honesty/quality of Walter Cronkite --- "That's the way it is" Wink

by Guest Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:34 am

The police put those stories about to damage the reputation of the fans 4Ever, because they knew they had screwed up. They tried to make out that the fans were drunk, and even tested the children who died for alcholol, changed the statements of the police that were there and all sorts. Iniquitous.

by Guest Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:42 am

sassy wrote:The police put those stories about to damage the reputation of the fans 4Ever, because they knew they had screwed up. They tried to make out that the fans were drunk, and even tested the children who died for alcholol, changed the statements of the police that were there and all sorts. Iniquitous.

GOOD GRIEF...'Serve & Protect' seems to be as easily twisted in England as over here in America --- egregious. Evil or Very Mad

by eddie Thu Apr 28, 2016 8:25 am

sassy wrote:The police put those stories about to damage the reputation of the fans 4Ever, because they knew they had screwed up. They tried to make out that the fans were drunk, and even tested the children who died for alcholol, changed the statements of the police that were there and all sorts. Iniquitous.

Wonder if anyone called the story a "conspiracy"....?

by Raggamuffin Thu Apr 28, 2016 10:23 am

HoratioTarr wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:I really don't understand what this "cover up" consists of. The facts about Hillsborough have been known for years haven't they? I'm sure I read years ago that the gate had been opened by the police because of the situation outside the pitch.

Whatever the findings of the jury, fans did rush into that tunnel even though it was full and shoved their way through so that others died.

If the football club hadn't erected those metal fences, those people might be alive today.

Well then you could say they wouldn't have had to erect them if previous fans hadn't gone on the pitch.

I just can't find it in myself to completely blame the police for the situation. I mean, when the gate was opened, a load of people just ran through and went for the tunnel. Fair enough - the tunnel was clear at that point, so they ran through and went into the pen, which was already full but they thought they could squeeze in. At some point though the tunnel must have started to fill up with people, so the ones who went into the tunnel when there were already people in it must have pushed and shoved the people in front of them. Then surely the tunnel must have completely filled up, so instead of waiting, the ones at the back just shoved and shoved until people were crammed into those pens. I mean - at what point do people think - well it's crowded so there's no point trying to move forward?

by HoratioTarr Thu Apr 28, 2016 10:45 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

If the football club hadn't erected those metal fences, those people might be alive today.

Well then you could say they wouldn't have had to erect them if previous fans hadn't gone on the pitch.

I just can't find it in myself to completely blame the police for the situation. I mean, when the gate was opened, a load of people just ran through and went for the tunnel. Fair enough - the tunnel was clear at that point, so they ran through and went into the pen, which was already full but they thought they could squeeze in. At some point though the tunnel must have started to fill up with people, so the ones who went into the tunnel when there were already people in it must have pushed and shoved the people in front of them. Then surely the tunnel must have completely filled up, so instead of waiting, the ones at the back just shoved and shoved until people were crammed into those pens. I mean - at what point do people think - well it's crowded so there's no point trying to move forward?

Exactly.

Those fans behaved like a mob, pushing and pushing. Who can deny that? When you see a wall of bodies, do you keep on pushing? Or do you back off?

The cover up and lies by the police is the issue here though to finally put to rest the deaths and the absolution these relatives have needed. It's a bit of a Pyrrhic Victory though.

by Guest Thu Apr 28, 2016 10:52 am

eddie wrote:
sassy wrote:The police put those stories about to damage the reputation of the fans 4Ever, because they knew they had screwed up. They tried to make out that the fans were drunk, and even tested the children who died for alcholol, changed the statements of the police that were there and all sorts. Iniquitous.

Wonder if anyone called the story a "conspiracy"....?

Probably! Thank goodness the jury was shown how the fans never stood a chance and the police actions drove them forward from outside the ground and kept driving them forward so they had no chance, even when they were screaming at the police to stop doing it and lifting people up to try and save them. Now those that died can finally get the dignity they deserve and the 'conspiracy theory' is shown to be the truth.

by Raggamuffin Thu Apr 28, 2016 11:13 am

sassy wrote:
eddie wrote:

Wonder if anyone called the story a "conspiracy"....?

Probably! Thank goodness the jury was shown how the fans never stood a chance and the police actions drove them forward from outside the ground and kept driving them forward so they had no chance, even when they were screaming at the police to stop doing it and lifting people up to try and save them. Now those that died can finally get the dignity they deserve and the 'conspiracy theory' is shown to be the truth.

The police opened a gate, but they rushed through it all by themselves and they went down that tunnel all by themselves. They pushed and shoved from the back all by themselves. The people already in the pen were not to blame obviously.

by Raggamuffin Thu Apr 28, 2016 11:15 am

HoratioTarr wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Well then you could say they wouldn't have had to erect them if previous fans hadn't gone on the pitch.

I just can't find it in myself to completely blame the police for the situation. I mean, when the gate was opened, a load of people just ran through and went for the tunnel. Fair enough - the tunnel was clear at that point, so they ran through and went into the pen, which was already full but they thought they could squeeze in. At some point though the tunnel must have started to fill up with people, so the ones who went into the tunnel when there were already people in it must have pushed and shoved the people in front of them. Then surely the tunnel must have completely filled up, so instead of waiting, the ones at the back just shoved and shoved until people were crammed into those pens. I mean - at what point do people think - well it's crowded so there's no point trying to move forward?

Exactly.

Those fans behaved like a mob, pushing and pushing. Who can deny that? When you see a wall of bodies, do you keep on pushing? Or do you back off?

The cover up and lies by the police is the issue here though to finally put to rest the deaths and the absolution these relatives have needed. It's a bit of a Pyrrhic Victory though.

I'm actually quite relieved that someone else sees what I see re the actual events.

As I said, I don't really know what this "cover up" is, but they want to prosecute the police for directly causing the deaths now don't they? It's not just an issue of pulling them up for any lies which were told.

by eddie Thu Apr 28, 2016 11:26 am

The point is, the police shouldn't have let them in. They were the people "traffic wardens" that day and if they were beckoning for people to keep going in....then they made the mistake.

by Raggamuffin Thu Apr 28, 2016 11:30 am

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.

Many officers who made such allegations against supporters in their original 1989 accounts, which the force notoriously vetted and altered, maintained that stance under scathing challenge by the families’ barristers. For periods, these inquests felt like an inversion of a criminal prosecution, in which police officers were repeatedly accused of lying, covering up and perverting the course of justice, while sticking insistently to their stories.

That makes it sound like the officers should have backed down. If I had been a witness and I was saying what I saw, nothing would have made me back down and change my story. If that's what they saw, it's what they saw.

Nobody has explained why there was such a huge number of people outside so close to kick off.

By 2.48pm, the crowd at the turnstiles had compacted into a dangerous crush, and Marshall radioed the control room, asking if the large exit gate C could be opened. Duckenfield did not respond until Marshall said somebody would die outside if he did not open the gate. At 2.52pm, Duckenfield ordered it open.

So the police were concerned about the crowds outside to the extent that they were worried that deaths would occur. It's a pity they didn't turn them all back instead of letting them in, but again I ask - why did so many turn up so late all at once? Why didn't they back off up the road instead of pressing forward?

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/apr/26/hillsborough-disaster-deadly-mistakes-and-lies-that-lasted-decades

by Raggamuffin Thu Apr 28, 2016 11:32 am

eddie wrote:The point is, the police shouldn't have let them in. They were the people "traffic wardens" that day and if they were beckoning for people to keep going in....then they made the mistake.

I agree - they should have turned them back and arrested them if they refused to back off. However, the intention was to relieve the crush outside, and they didn't foresee that they would all go for the tunnel and shove their way through even though it was clearly impossible to get in. I wonder what difference it would have made even if someone had been at the mouth of the tunnel redirecting them tbh - maybe not much. They wanted to get in and they were prepared to crush others in order to do so.

by eddie Thu Apr 28, 2016 11:33 am

It's like that on the tube in rush hour.

by Raggamuffin Thu Apr 28, 2016 11:37 am

eddie wrote:It's like that on the tube in rush hour.

It's amazing that you said that eddie because it's what I've been thinking whilst posting. I lived in London for many years, so I saw the crowding problems on the Underground many many times. Of course there were always a few people who forced their way onto a train which was clearly full, but most people backed off - they didn't just keep on and on going forward. If you couldn't even get on the platform you didn't keep on and on trying to push the people in front of you.

by Guest Thu Apr 28, 2016 11:37 am

Rags: I agree - they should have turned them back and arrested them if they refused to back off.

Nobody was refusing to back off, they were being forced forward.

This is exactly what the friends and relatives of those that died have been fighting all these years. You are not only being disrespectful to those that died, YOU ARE DOING SO AFTER THE FACTS HAVE PROVED IT WAS THE POLICE THAT CAUSED THEIR DEATHS.

I'm certainly not replying to anything more you say on the subject, those people deserve respect, not a continuation of something that has be proved to be wrong after 27 years of trying.

by Raggamuffin Thu Apr 28, 2016 11:40 am

sassy wrote:Rags: I agree - they should have turned them back and arrested them if they refused to back off.

Nobody was refusing to back off, they were being forced forward.

This is exactly what the friends and relatives of those that died have been fighting all these years. You are not only being disrespectful to those that died, YOU ARE DOING SO AFTER THE FACTS HAVE PROVED IT WAS THE POLICE THAT CAUSED THEIR DEATHS.

I'm certainly not replying to anything more you say on the subject, those people deserve respect, not a continuation of something that has be proved to be wrong after 27 years of trying.

I didn't see them being forced forward, I saw them rushing through the gates all on their own.

I knew someone would get on their high horse. I've already said that those already in the pens were not to blame, but I'm sorry - if you come up against a large crowd of people you stop, you don't keep forcing the ones in front of you forward.

by Guest Thu Apr 28, 2016 11:42 am

FGS, because there where police on horses behind them. Enough already!

by eddie Thu Apr 28, 2016 11:43 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
eddie wrote:It's like that on the tube in rush hour.

It's amazing that you said that eddie because it's what I've been thinking whilst posting. I lived in London for many years, so I saw the crowding problems on the Underground many many times. Of course there were always a few people who forced their way onto a train which was clearly full, but most people backed off - they didn't just keep on and on going forward. If you couldn't even get on the platform you didn't keep on and on trying to push the people in front of you.

I lived and worked there for years too rags and sometimes the station guards would have to get in the loudspeaker and ask people to get off and stop pushing.
But I've not heard of a "crushing" incident like the one at Hillsborough so clearly, something went terribly wrong that day.

by Raggamuffin Thu Apr 28, 2016 11:45 am

eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

It's amazing that you said that eddie because it's what I've been thinking whilst posting. I lived in London for many years, so I saw the crowding problems on the Underground many many times. Of course there were always a few people who forced their way onto a train which was clearly full, but most people backed off - they didn't just keep on and on going forward. If you couldn't even get on the platform you didn't keep on and on trying to push the people in front of you.

I lived and worked there for years too rags and sometimes the station guards would have to get in the loudspeaker and ask people to get off and stop pushing.
But I've not heard of a "crushing" incident like the one at Hillsborough so clearly, something went terribly wrong that day.

What went wrong was people turning up late and pushing forward when there was clearly no place to push anyone to because they wanted to see the match.

by Raggamuffin Thu Apr 28, 2016 11:46 am

I would also ask why the police are responsible for crowd control at matches anyway. The football clubs should arrange their own crowd control. After all they know the ground better than anyone, and they get paid for people to attend matches.

by Raggamuffin Thu Apr 28, 2016 11:54 am

sassy wrote:FGS, because there where police on horses behind them. Enough already!

There weren't enough police on horses to force anyone through. I've watched the footage. Nobody forced them to keep going into a tunnel which was clearly full.

by eddie Thu Apr 28, 2016 11:58 am

Raggamuffin wrote:I would also ask why the police are responsible for crowd control at matches anyway. The football clubs should arrange their own crowd control. After all they know the ground better than anyone, and they get paid for people to attend matches.

That, I can agree with. I've always wondered that.
There should be some police presence though as for all large gatherings like concerts etc

by Raggamuffin Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:02 pm

eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:I would also ask why the police are responsible for crowd control at matches anyway. The football clubs should arrange their own crowd control. After all they know the ground better than anyone, and they get paid for people to attend matches.

That, I can agree with. I've always wondered that.
There should be some police presence though as for all large gatherings like concerts etc

Police presence, yes, in case there's trouble and they need to arrest people. It was absolute mayhem outside the grounds. The layout didn't help I guess - the approach is a fairly small residential street, but even so, the fans were pressing forward all the time when there was nowhere to go. I think perhaps the biggest mistake was not postponing kick off so that fans weren't so desperate to get in. However, that was a mistake, and not something I would blame someone for.

by HoratioTarr Thu Apr 28, 2016 1:42 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:I would also ask why the police are responsible for crowd control at matches anyway. The football clubs should arrange their own crowd control. After all they know the ground better than anyone, and they get paid for people to attend matches.

They do arrange it. That's what they pay the police for. The police don't do it for free you know.

by HoratioTarr Thu Apr 28, 2016 1:43 pm

eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:I would also ask why the police are responsible for crowd control at matches anyway. The football clubs should arrange their own crowd control. After all they know the ground better than anyone, and they get paid for people to attend matches.

That, I can agree with. I've always wondered that.
There should be some police presence though as for all large gatherings like concerts etc

Also, the police didn't have enough radios. God knows why, as it would be the logical thing. So communication was compromised.

by Raggamuffin Thu Apr 28, 2016 1:43 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:I would also ask why the police are responsible for crowd control at matches anyway. The football clubs should arrange their own crowd control. After all they know the ground better than anyone, and they get paid for people to attend matches.

They do arrange it. That's what they pay the police for. The police don't do it for free you know.

They pay them the proper rate? That takes the police off the streets when they could be doing other things though.

by HoratioTarr Thu Apr 28, 2016 1:47 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

They do arrange it. That's what they pay the police for. The police don't do it for free you know.

They pay them the proper rate? That takes the police off the streets when they could be doing other things though.

For events like football matches, concerts etc, the police are paid for crowd control and for their services.

http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/disclosure_2014/august_2014/2013030002515.pdf

by Tommy Monk Thu Apr 28, 2016 2:08 pm

I think it is more the police who can't be trusted here... they fed the bullshit to the media and have been lying and twisting for nearly 30 years over this...

by Raggamuffin Thu Apr 28, 2016 2:28 pm

I've watched the scenes at Lepping Lane, and it's entirely possible that some fans were not behaving properly - that's what happens when you get a large crowd. A police officer can only be in one place at a time, so he/she wouldn't see the whole picture and they can only say what they personally witnessed.

by Raggamuffin Thu Apr 28, 2016 2:36 pm

What is missing from footage is the actual tunnel. The scenes at gate C are filmed, and the scenes in pen 3 and 4, but the situation at the tunnel is missing.

by HoratioTarr Thu Apr 28, 2016 8:28 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:I think it is more the police who can't be trusted here... they fed the bullshit to the media and have been lying and twisting for nearly 30 years over this...

Well, this is what all the hoo hah is about.

by Raggamuffin Thu Apr 28, 2016 8:36 pm

So what were these dreadful lies? I've read some stuff of course but they don't seem like huge lies. I did read that gate C was opened to eject someone and loads of fans came in - the first time it was opened anyway. Perhaps it was all a matter of perception.

by Raggamuffin Thu Apr 28, 2016 9:12 pm

I'm quite puzzled by the whole situation really. I've seen reports that if they had only used the turnstiles it would have taken another 40 minutes to get everyone in. What time do people usually turn up to football matches? There were loads of people still walking down the road just before kick off. Why were so many of them so late?

by Syl Thu Apr 28, 2016 9:56 pm

Why didn't they delay the kick off....that would have been the most reasonable solution as so many fans were not inside the stadium.

by Irn Bru Fri Apr 29, 2016 1:15 am

When the establishment and the media decided to try and show Liverpool as something they are not then they picked on the wrong people and the wrong city because they will fight until they die to get justice and indeed some did.

Justice at last and the families and the whole city should be proud of what they did in never giving up no matter how long it would take.

Liverpool is a great city and I love going there.

by 'Wolfie Fri Apr 29, 2016 7:24 am

eddie wrote:It's becoming increasingly hard to ever take some of these publications seriously, and this is what I mean when I say, I always doubt what I read and keep an open mind to possibilities.

I remember reading that Sun article , I was 19 years old when that front page reported that, and I was gullible and I believed it.
Newpapers print the story, newspapers print the truth.

Then you wise up when you realise that every other thing you read contradicts itself.

OVER HERE, a lot of people would have been sceptical of that pro-police propaganda for one simple reason..

A LOT of Aussies won't trust any of the Mu4doch publications because they know the kind of rubbish that they regularly,print. IF there's anything worrying or interesting there, verify with another couple of sources.. Suspect

by 'Wolfie Fri Apr 29, 2016 7:40 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

They do arrange it. That's what they pay the police for. The police don't do it for free you know.

They pay them the proper rate? That takes the police off the streets when they could be doing other things though.

OVER HERE, they the police extra for crowd control outside of sporting events as well...

AND, IT doesn't take police "off the streets" or away from other duties, either -- that's a common furphy; but, police actually adjust their manpower to meet their budget and demand -- where with the likes of big sports events and G10/G20 conferences, more money and more work means more cops being rostered on that day, or week..

by Sponsored content