Bolitics The New Condem Government

[thetrees]

Interesting the comparisons being drawn with Hillsborough.In Mitchell's case the police apparently refused to open the gate for a rude, mouthy individual who had no right to have the gate opened.In the Hillsborough case the police apparently opened the gates for a gang of rude, mouthy individuals, who had no rights to have the gates opened by virtue of the fact that they were ticketless.Of course, in both cases the police are entirely to blame, and in both cases the gate stormers are vindicated heroes.

Except your version of the Hillsborough Tragedy isn't even close to the truth. Why keep peddling this bollocks which has been proved to be utterly untrue? not that its for this thread but come on

In fairness, I don't have a 'version', except that I have a belief that the only people who were blameless on the day were the victims, whereas others attempt to place the entire blame on the authorities.

[thetrees]

Interesting the comparisons being drawn with Hillsborough.

In Mitchell's case the police apparently refused to open the gate for a rude, mouthy individual who had no right to have the gate opened.

In the Hillsborough case the police apparently opened the gates for a gang of rude, mouthy individuals, who had no rights to have the gates opened by virtue of the fact that they were ticketless.

Of course, in both cases the police are entirely to blame, and in both cases the gate stormers are vindicated heroes.

 

That's a pretty sick comparison. 

 

In Mitchell's case, the conduct of the police which is now being criticised is making too harsh a judgement on Mitchell's actions in him implying the police were lying, but him failing either to back that up or climb down; them rushing to say as much to the tv, including calling for his resignation, possibly for political reasons; and failing to kowtow to Cameron and his stooges when instructed.

 

In the case of Hillsborough, the police are criticised for failing to exercise proper control of the crowd (the function for which they were employed that day); failing to respond to what commentators present at the scene said was an obvious and urgent calamity; giving false account of their actions; corruptly altering written statements after the event to disguise their incompetence; briefing the tame press (pray save us from Leveson) to print lies and libel; and using political connections to stifle any examination of their unlawful and corrupt behaviour.

 

In one case, someone had a slight disruption to his career path, which he had assumed to be laid out before him like diamonds before a conquering hero; in the other, 96 people lie dead.

 

There is no useful comparison to be made between these situations.

The comparison with Hillsborough was raised by others.

Of course, we know about corruption and cover ups as they have been well documented, which is why the entire blame for the tragedy is with the police and authorities, and others who may be culpable will never have a case to answer.

At least the families feel that they are getting some kind of justice. The families of the Birmingham pub bombings, also victims of 'unlawful and corrupt behaviour' will never receive such solace.

[bickster]

Interesting the comparisons being drawn with Hillsborough.In Mitchell's case the police apparently refused to open the gate for a rude, mouthy individual who had no right to have the gate opened.In the Hillsborough case the police apparently opened the gates for a gang of rude, mouthy individuals, who had no rights to have the gates opened by virtue of the fact that they were ticketless.Of course, in both cases the police are entirely to blame, and in both cases the gate stormers are vindicated heroes.

Except your version of the Hillsborough Tragedy isn't even close to the truth. Why keep peddling this bollocks which has been proved to be utterly untrue? not that its for this thread but come on

In fairness, I don't have a 'version', except that I have a belief that the only people who were blameless on the day were the victims, whereas others attempt to place the entire blame on the authorities.

You can have whatever belief you want but its not based on evidence or fact, its actually seemingly based on articles even The Sun has since apologised for. you might as well join the flat earth society if you believe than nonsense

[colhint]

well what bloody shape do you think the earth is then? can't be round or all the Australians would fall off.

[thetrees]

Interesting the comparisons being drawn with Hillsborough.In Mitchell's case the police apparently refused to open the gate for a rude, mouthy individual who had no right to have the gate opened.In the Hillsborough case the police apparently opened the gates for a gang of rude, mouthy individuals, who had no rights to have the gates opened by virtue of the fact that they were ticketless.Of course, in both cases the police are entirely to blame, and in both cases the gate stormers are vindicated heroes.

Except your version of the Hillsborough Tragedy isn't even close to the truth. Why keep peddling this bollocks which has been proved to be utterly untrue? not that its for this thread but come on

In fairness, I don't have a 'version', except that I have a belief that the only people who were blameless on the day were the victims, whereas others attempt to place the entire blame on the authorities.

You can have whatever belief you want but its not based on evidence or fact, its actually seemingly based on articles even The Sun has since apologised for. you might as well join the flat earth society if you believe than nonsense

I have no wish to reignite this debate in this thread, but equally refuse to accept being attacked in such a way.

I appreciate that it is convenient for you to label me, as is often the way with people who have a totally one-sided view.

As I stated, I don't have a version.

I have a right to a belief, as it is a free country.

I have never read 'The Sun'

In your world apparently the entire blame is with the police and the authorities. I agree that part of the blame, but not the entire blame is with the police and authorities.

Like probably you, I experienced football in the 70s and 80s. Whilst scouse fans were not particularly notorious for their violence, they were for their ingenuity at entering sold out football matches, something that some continue to manage to this day. On the day of Hillsborough hundreds of ticketless Everton fans hopped the turnstiles at the Holte End. That was fine, it was big enough.

Nobody set out to kill anyone that day, but everyone who could have done something to avoid the disaster was culpable in some way, and the pendulum swing between blaming latecoming or ticketless supporters and the police/authorities is not something that I subscribe to. In short my view has always been that all parties had a hand in the tragedy.

Unfortunately, the demands of the community on Merseyside, mean that only some of the parties involved on the day can receive the blame, while others must be completely exonerated.

As far as any subsequent 'cover ups' of negligence are concerned, then my view is that they should be dealt with by the full force of law.

[bickster]

I experienced the same fixture the year before, knew people who died, have read and listened to more testimony than you care to mention, read the evidence (thats the factual evidence relating to that day) and fully understand what went on, you on the other hand clearly have none of the above.

I haven't labelled you either, I've stated that your view isn't based on any fact. Whether you like it or not your view is exactly the view espoused in the Sun and other publications for months and years after the tragedy, all of which has subsequently after independent legal analysis of the facts proved to be an absolute work of fiction. There were no masses of ticketless fans, ticketless fans did not create the situation. It has been proven there was collusion between the Police, the media and the authorities to come up with a version of events (which you still seem to believe) that has subsequently PROVED to be a complete and utter tissue of lies, with the sole aim of covering up the inadequacies of the police force, the response of the emergency services, the attitude of the govt etc and putting the blame squarely at the feet of the Liverpool fans.

If you want to hold beliefs that are simply not true thats your choice but don't expect people who know the situation fully not to respond to your posts and challenge them.

[thetrees]

I experienced the same fixture the year before, knew people who died, have read and listened to more testimony than you care to mention, read the evidence (thats the factual evidence relating to that day) and fully understand what went on, you on the other hand clearly have none of the above.

I haven't labelled you either, I've stated that your view isn't based on any fact. Whether you like it or not your view is exactly the view espoused in the Sun and other publications for months and years after the tragedy, all of which has subsequently after independent legal analysis of the facts proved to be an absolute work of fiction. There were no masses of ticketless fans, ticketless fans did not create the situation. It has been proven there was collusion between the Police, the media and the authorities to come up with a version of events (which you still seem to believe) that has subsequently PROVED to be a complete and utter tissue of lies, with the sole aim of covering up the inadequacies of the police force, the response of the emergency services, the attitude of the govt etc and putting the blame squarely at the feet of the Liverpool fans.

If you want to hold beliefs that are simply not true thats your choice but don't expect people who know the situation fully not to respond to your posts and challenge them.

As I have stated, I do not believe, and never have believed that the blame lies squarely at the feet of some of the Liverpool fans, nor any other group. Once again you are picking out only the parts of what I post that suit.

Let's agree to disagree. I have no desire to lock horns over what everyone agrees was a national tragedy.

[bickster]

Ok and the moon is made of blue cheese

[peterms]

I know vt likes a point scoring over trivial matters but it was clear in what context it was being said in response to Bicks comment

(Btw i didn't say he "has" been vindicated )

But that aside what would you call it when police officers public accounts differ from a recorded account that shows the police officers lied .... Would it not be a vindication of some

sorts ?

Look, I really don't want to spend all my time on this site correcting spelling and grammar, and explaining false interpretations. It would be as tedious for me as for others. But where you say "if the police hadn't lied he wouldn't have been vindicated", do you not understand that this means you believe he has been vindicated? That is what it means. If you don't mean that, then say so. As it stands, the words you wrote mean that you think he has been vindicated.

 

 

My view is that, taken as a whole, the comments made by the federation representatives did have the impact of misleading the public as to what happened in that meeting,"

When asked whether he thinks Mitchell - who resigned his job in Cabinet shortly after the Sutton Coldfield meeting - is owed an apology for the way the case was handled, Reakes-Williams said: "Certainly I do."

And so on

 

Your point here is obscure. Do you mean that some senior representatives from the police distanced themselves from the Police Federation bods, and therefore that's it, case closed, we can all accept the Fed guys were lying and by extension, any other police that say a bad word about that nice Mr Mitchell must be lying too, but any police speaking up for him must be believed, oh yes?

Senior police, like the government, don't much like the Fed. It's not quite a union, but they view it much the same.

Reakes-Havoc is a church elder in an evangelical church, who writes about himself that he has "a keen interest in politics and current affairs, to the consternation of Alison, who fears a second career looms in this area!"  http://www.manorparkchurch.org/elder-profile-jerry-reakes-williams  I take it that's the same geezer?

The Fed guys very clearly refused to apologise, and believe they were in the right. Reading the transcript (which I guess we've all done who comment on this, yeah?) Mitchell says at the end that he has given no new information, and they repeat this; but the line put out by him and his gofers is that he has been disarmingly frank with them.

The Fed coppers are likely playing politics.

The senior officers are likely playing politics.

Mitchell's spin team are certainly playing politics, round the clock.

Your post offers nothing new to the discussion. If you have something new to add, it would be great to hear it.

[tonyh29]

I know vt likes a point scoring over trivial matters but it was clear in what context it was being said in response to Bicks comment (Btw i didn't say he "has" been vindicated ) But that aside what would you call it when police officers public accounts differ from a recorded account that shows the police officers lied .... Would it not be a vindication of some sorts ?

Look, I really don't want to spend all my time on this site correcting spelling and grammar, and explaining false interpretations. It would be as tedious for me as for others. But where you say "if the police hadn't lied he wouldn't have been vindicated", do you not understand that this means you believe he has been vindicated? That is what it means. If you don't mean that, then say so. As it stands, the words you wrote mean that you think he has been vindicated.

My view is that, taken as a whole, the comments made by the federation representatives did have the impact of misleading the public as to what happened in that meeting,"

When asked whether he thinks Mitchell - who resigned his job in Cabinet shortly after the Sutton Coldfield meeting - is owed an apology for the way the case was handled, Reakes-Williams said: "Certainly I do."

And so on

Your point here is obscure. Do you mean that some senior representatives from the police distanced themselves from the Police Federation bods, and therefore that's it, case closed, we can all accept the Fed guys were lying and by extension, any other police that say a bad word about that nice Mr Mitchell must be lying too, but any police speaking up for him must be believed, oh yes? Senior police, like the government, don't much like the Fed. It's not quite a union, but they view it much the same. Reakes-Havoc is a church elder in an evangelical church, who writes about himself that he has "a keen interest in politics and current affairs, to the consternation of Alison, who fears a second career looms in this area!" http://www.manorparkchurch.org/elder-profile-jerry-reakes-williams I take it that's the same geezer? The Fed guys very clearly refused to apologise, and believe they were in the right. Reading the transcript (which I guess we've all done who comment on this, yeah?) Mitchell says at the end that he has given no new information, and they repeat this; but the line put out by him and his gofers is that he has been disarmingly frank with them. The Fed coppers are likely playing politics. The senior officers are likely playing politics. Mitchell's spin team are certainly playing politics, round the clock. Your post offers nothing new to the discussion. If you have something new to add, it would be great to hear it.

You ought to try getting over yourself sometime I was replying to a point that someone else raised so take your anger out on them if you feel it adds nothing new ... Edited October 26, 2013 by tonyh29

[villaajax]

My sister, who is a Russell Brand fan (I do sometimes wonder how we are related), kept on at me until I finally watched the interview with Paxman which I'd refused to watch as I really cannot stand Brand that much.

 

And I have to say... It was exactly what I expected it to be. Brand comes out with some fantastical, unrealistic idea, Paxman questions it and Brand fires back with some silly comment about Paxman's beard or being a comedian or having used drugs and having no real answer for anything.

 

And she thinks that's brilliant and he's outwitted Paxman!

[tonyh29]

My sister, who is a Russell Brand fan (I do sometimes wonder how we are related), kept on at me until I finally watched the interview with Paxman which I'd refused to watch as I really cannot stand Brand that much.

And I have to say... It was exactly what I expected it to be. Brand comes out with some fantastical, unrealistic idea, Paxman questions it and Brand fires back with some silly comment about Paxman's beard or being a comedian or having used drugs and having no real answer for anything.

And she thinks that's brilliant and he's outwitted Paxman!

Yep that video has appeared on my Facebook feed a few times along with comments about how great Brand is

There is even a Brand for PM page now

I fear for this country sometimes I really do

[bickster]

Brand was right about one thing. There's no-one to vote for

[villaajax]

I don't know, there were at least 4 candidates in my constituency at the last election, I'd expect about the same next time.

[chrisp65]

the whole party system is gash

 

the best two candidates by a stand out country mile in my area are the tory and the Plaid candidate

 

but to vote for either of them on their local issues means you get the likes of Cameron by default

 

similarly, if the Labour candidate here was any good, a vote for that person would land me with Moribund

[Kingfisher]

Brand was right about one thing. There's no-one to vote for

Which I think is the basic core of what he was saying, along with the political system being corrupt and the voting system being gash.

I think it's great if kids are posting it on Facebook as it shows how utterly bored they are with politics and politicians, and if they become politically enthused, well done Mr Brand.

[villaajax]

For the majority of kids I think it's more a case of "Haha, Russell Brand said something funny to some random guy about people I've never heard of" than "I have grown so tired of party politics".

[Kingfisher]

No, I think it's more than that. But if anybody can get young people thinking rationally and maturely about politics I think it's great, because the only politics most young people are exposed are dangerous extremists like Gove and Cameron.

[Dr_Pangloss]

Brand certainly isn't the one to get people thinking 'rationally' and 'maturely' about politics, he's a complete pratt.

[Kingfisher]

I thought everything he said was rational and mature, I think it's a real worry that people are conditioned to think anything outside the box is extremist or naive when the real extremists are ones in the 'system'. I say this without a hint of irony, I'm not trying to controversial or goad our Tory posters or be party political, Blair was the same as were most of his Labour cronies.