Alan Davies comments

What truth are they expecting to find? Is there some sort of conspiracy that I'm not aware of? Lots of people got crushed to death and the police/emergency services reacted poorly to the situation. What else is there to it? I thought all of the underlying issues and failures have already been exposed such as the safety certificate being out of date etc. etc.

Do people from Liverpool expect to uncover that Saddam Hussain was behind it or something?

Genuinely confused :confused:

There's much wider issues such as how far the police went in terms of covering up their mistakes, evidence destroyed, a special "propaganda" unit that was set up in the aftermath to obfuscate the true extent of their responsibility and failures. How much of this was done ad hoc by individuals and how much of it was systematic has never been brought to light.

You've to got to remember that each of 96 people who died were individuals, each with their own families who want to know exactly how and why each of their loved ones died.

The so called 3:15 cut off is of particular concern. It's an arbitrary time set by the initial inquest which states that all the victims were dead by 3:15pm, when as a matter of fact, many victims were alive @ 3:15 and were receiving medical treatment, whilst some died in hospital hours and days later. All of these individual victims and their deaths were totally ignored by the inquest, all of whom have their cause of death recorded as "traumatic asphyxia".

The Truth campaign is often maligned as an effort to find someone to blame. It's not that, it's an effort to find out what actually happened, not in a general sense, but for each and every one of the victims, some of the families of which, not only lost loved ones, but were robbed of the right to find out why and how.
 
Last edited:
I understand some of what you are saying.

I still don't understand what sort of "truth" they want to uncover. Calling it truth rather than facts implies that they think something is being covered up or lied about, and I'm wondering what it is that they think they will uncover.

If evidence was destroyed then surely there is nothing to find?

What level of detail would be enough to satisfy these people? Is there something missing like CCTV footage that nobody has seen? (bearing in mind CCTV back then was pretty basic, they would probably have a hard time picking out family members on that footage anyway in a tightly packed crowd). Autopsy reports (or lack of)?

We know there were faults made by the police, ambulance etc.

We know there were some idiot fans pushing forwards from the back trying to get in to watch the game.

We know the facilities weren't up to scratch.

I'd say it was a very difficult situation to assess and if there were casualties within the crowd they were next to impossible to identify and get to/treat, so it would be very harsh to blame the medics at the scene. They were very much reliant on the people within the crowd helping out the injured/dying when the danger was at its highest.
 
Geez another Liverpool thread thats going to end up 10+ pages long...just like the Suarez 'racist' thread:p

Meh he made a stupid silly comment and has apologised for it but as per usual some Liverpool fans wont let it go:rolleyes:
 
Geez another Liverpool thread thats going to end up 10+ pages long...just like the Suarez 'racist' thread:p

Meh he made a stupid silly comment and has apologised for it but as per usual some Liverpool fans wont let it go:rolleyes:

This thread is more of a discussion on why Liverpool should be allowed not to play on that day, Alan Davies can have his silly comments, it isn't like more horrible stuff isn't said about it every day in certain places.
 
'That **** really gets on my ****?'
Fantastic insight from him.

It's not supposed to be a podcast for insight. This is a bloke who, a few weeks back, said we should sack the entire team and keep only RvP. He calls Tottenham "scum". Of course he's massively partisan on the podcast, that's the point of it. He exaggerates for comic effect, which is rather ironic, considering he doesn't really exaggerate in that clip (he swears, the horror).

The furore over this is stupid.

What exactly are they looking for then? I'm interested.
Unless I'm mistaken (feel free to correct me, I'm not a Liverpool fan after all), the issue isn't about what happened at Hillsbrough, but rather, the police cover-up following it.
 
I understand some of what you are saying.

I still don't understand what sort of "truth" they want to uncover. Calling it truth rather than facts implies that they think something is being covered up or lied about, and I'm wondering what it is that they think they will uncover.

If evidence was destroyed then surely there is nothing to find?

What level of detail would be enough to satisfy these people? Is there something missing like CCTV footage that nobody has seen? (bearing in mind CCTV back then was pretty basic, they would probably have a hard time picking out family members on that footage anyway in a tightly packed crowd). Autopsy reports (or lack of)?

We know there were faults made by the police, ambulance etc.

We know there were some idiot fans pushing forwards from the back trying to get in to watch the game.

We know the facilities weren't up to scratch.

I'd say it was a very difficult situation to assess and if there were casualties within the crowd they were next to impossible to identify and get to/treat, so it would be very harsh to blame the medics at the scene. They were very much reliant on the people within the crowd helping out the injured/dying when the danger was at its highest.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-16954412
 
My personal view is I can understand why Liverpool wouldn't want to play on that day, but equally I don't think the issue (discussing the merits of playing on that date or not) should be taboo.

Bradford were mentioned earlier, looking back I can see they were back playing on the 11th only 6 years after the fire, which was presumably the first time it fell on a Saturday since 1985 taking leap year into account:

11.05.1991 Bradford City 1-0 Rotherham United
 
My personal view is I can understand why Liverpool wouldn't want to play on that day, but equally I don't think the issue (discussing the merits of playing on that date or not) should be taboo.

That's the crux of the issue. Simply discussing it and having an opinion should not cause this outrage. It is just not offensive at all, and the people who are offended are people who are looking to be offended. I've just listened to the clip again ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1XBPA5drFo ) and it's just clearly not inflammatory or offensive
 
He's admitted his guilt though :confused:

That was nothing to do with the furore that has gone off after his comments? You REALLY think that isn't just a bit of backtracking, trying to save face a bit? (Whether he has said anything wrong or not.)
 
My personal view is I can understand why Liverpool wouldn't want to play on that day, but equally I don't think the issue (discussing the merits of playing on that date or not) should be taboo.

Bradford were mentioned earlier, looking back I can see they were back playing on the 11th only 6 years after the fire, which was presumably the first time it fell on a Saturday since 1985 taking leap year into account:

11.05.1991 Bradford City 1-0 Rotherham United

That is 100% fine it not being taboo.

Claiming it 'that **** gets on my ****' on the other hand is only going to offend people is it not?
 
That was nothing to do with the furore that has gone off after his comments? You REALLY think that isn't just a bit of backtracking, trying to save face a bit? (Whether he has said anything wrong or not.)

I really don't know, that's why I'm skeptical about how sincere his gesture (of donating £1,000) was.

In response to what HangTime said, if somebody wants to debate the rights and wrongs of not playing on that date, fine, but do it in the way that he did (especially so close to the anniversary) lacked class.
 
So people are offended by the use of that phrase? I think that sums it all up, storm in a teacup.

I am sure if you were affected by a tragedy/death of someone or anything and wanted to pay your respects just for one day out of each year and someone said 'that **** gets on my ****' to you, you wouldn't think very fondly of the person it is a very insensitive comment to make. Everyone has different ways of dealing with grief, he has no right to come out with 'that **** gets on my ****'.

That said the overreaction to it is a joke as worse stuff is said every day about hillsborough and every other awful thing that goes on in this world.
 
Back
Top Bottom