As much as I think big (perhaps unlawful) mistakes were made by South Yorkshire Police, I'm not very happy to see Sheffield Wednesday getting a kicking.
Wednesday are culpable, but it could have been a few other clubs.
Stadium safety isn't like it is these days.
Exactly, this could have happened at White Hart Lane, Villa Park....even Wembley. Semi finals and finals were notorious for fans trying to get in without tickets.
Did they find the design of the stadium didn't meet regulations at the time, or with the benefit of hindsight?
A 4% shift is only margin or error, and we need to see other polls before coming to judgement.
However, there is polling evidence that many voters are unhappy at Obama's intervention.
I was very surprised at how unsubtle the intervention was. To many voters, it looks like he flew into the UK, at David Cameron's invitation, said 'vote Remain, or else' and then flew out again. It's no wonder that hasn't been well received.
International seagull diplomacy at its finest. Flies in, eats the food and cr*ps everywhere....
Kudos to Andy Burnham for helping accelerate this process.
Provided it doesn't result in EVEN MORE calls for judge led inquiries...
Although, I suppose it might speed up the development of an AI Opposition. It wouldn't be difficult for a computer programme to do better than the Labour party at the moment....
On Page One or ORB's tables, they have 526 of their 800 sample as 'definite' voters. 66% turnout.
37% turnout as definite among 18-24; 75% turnout as definite among 55-grim reaper;
A quarter of the "A" vote are under 25, while nearly 30% of these U/25s own their own houses or have mortgages. Of course they do.
2015 turnout was 85% among this sample, and as with almost all phone samples, there is suspiciously high over-sampling of claimed Labour voters.
Some regions have claimed 90%+ turnout. These are most common in Labour areas.
Basically, a lot of people lie over the phone and say they vote Labour.
Whilst phone polls were better for Tory/Lab last May, they were poorer on left/right than the internet .
It appears that people say Labour when they actually vote UKIP, This is the stigma of people regularly being dubbed racist for holding views about immigration.
It's reasonable to suspect that this follows through in almost all responses on specific issues, including EU leanings. The polite answer is given as opposed to the honest one.
Last week was widely reported as a triumph for REMAIN. Gameover said some commentators. We had the 200 page defining statement from Osborne and then the Cameron love-in with Obama. ...and the polling got worse for REMAIN. "Laugh, I nearly sha*, I had not laughed so much since grandma died.."
Something else I've been thinking about - a reason for Germany wanting to keep us in the EU is that we have, for the last 20 years or so, taken up the "bad guy" or obstructionist role. It has won us few friends and made us many enemies in Brussels, but most countries recognise the need for a country to take up that role. I think the German government worry that if Britain leaves, it will become the lone voice of dissent because no one else would be willing to take up a role that will leave them friendless like us.
What would Germany be dissenting from, exactly? It is 100% behind the move to European federation.
Only because there is a major player who isn't. Britain acts as a brake on EU integration, the Germans know that if we leave someone else will have to take up that role and in doing so make themselves very unpopular.
As much as I think big (perhaps unlawful) mistakes were made by South Yorkshire Police, I'm not very happy to see Sheffield Wednesday getting a kicking.
Wednesday are culpable, but it could have been a few other clubs.
Stadium safety isn't like it is these days.
Exactly, this could have happened at White Hart Lane, Villa Park....even Wembley. Semi finals and finals were notorious for fans trying to get in without tickets.
Did they find the design of the stadium didn't meet regulations at the time, or with the benefit of hindsight?
As far as I'm concerned the fences were there to satisfy the FA. Arsenal refused to have fences and that meant they sacrificed the possibility of hosting semi finals. Yes, the ground was dangerous, but only because the police completely botched the crowd management.
Kudos to Andy Burnham for helping accelerate this process.
I still don't get why Jack Straw refused to look at this.
It wasn't so long ago when the police were utterly respected, and football fans of the 80s were viewed with disdain.
I'm a Liverpool fan who lives in Sheffield (and at the time of the disaster), my Father was one of the docs who went to the hospitals to help on the day of the disaster, I didn't realise what had gone on until I started going to Anfield in the late 90s and speaking to the fans.
I accepted the official narrative up to that point, to my eternal regret.
As much as I think big (perhaps unlawful) mistakes were made by South Yorkshire Police, I'm not very happy to see Sheffield Wednesday getting a kicking.
They just happened to be the ones involved here. Most 1980s football grounds would have been equally critisised, as the Taylor report and changes made since then illustrate well.
ORB's previous polls had DK/WNV at 5%. Around a quarter of the other pollsters. Must be the methodology.
It could imply good news for Remain if the DK/WNVs of other pollsters actually break in favour of Remain because among all pollsters ORB is the most favourable to Remain.
It appears that people say Labour when they actually vote UKIP, This is the stigma of people regularly being dubbed racist for holding views about immigration.
It's reasonable to suspect that this follows through in almost all responses on specific issues. The polite answer is given as opposed to the honest one.
If that continues to be the case the polsters better find another way to make living!
I wonder what the political ramifications of a very, very narrow Remain are? Basically half the country want out. That can't be ignored. Bit likewise basically half want in too. Actually I suspect this is not quite true and that over half WANT out but over half will VOTE in because they have been successfully spooked. I smell a neverendum coming.
The last thing the EU will want is a UK still (just) in but forced by public opinion to be frustrating and obstructionist at every turn.
Perhaps they should start campaigning for 'LEAVE'. I think in their shoes that is exactly what I would be doing, gently. Floating the EEA option for example.
This is less fantastic than it sounds. Jacques Delors in the not-so-distant past suggested the UK could opt out of the political elements of the EU and have a 'privileged partnership' based mostly on trade. And the Germans more recently have hinted (behind the bluster) that such a deal might be on the table, too.
It's actually the UK government that has insisted (and still insists) on perpetuating the current half-in, half-out situation which suits nobody and will become increasingly unsustainable as the years proceed.
I think there would be a comfortable majority for that solution in the UK.
Absolutely, but I guess the EU are terrified of a snowball effect. I;ve read that Sweden may look to jump ship if the UK does....Denmark...maybe Holland....
The Dutch are very keen on the Euro (something like 3:1 agree with the "The Euro has been good for the Netherlands, including more than half of all PVV voters!), so I suspect they won't jump.
But I could definitely see Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and even Poland jump.
If there was a group of non-aligned states with the same sort of deal, Britain would be its natural leader - something else I have a feeling the EU wants to avoid. (and America, for that matter).
Although there's o intrinsic reason why that solution couldn't be progressed *within* the EU, formalising a multi-tiered approach.
On Page One or ORB's tables, they have 526 of their 800 sample as 'definite' voters. 66% turnout.
37% turnout as definite among 18-24; 75% turnout as definite among 55-grim reaper;
A quarter of the "A" vote are under 25, while nearly 30% of these U/25s own their own houses or have mortgages. Of course they do.
2015 turnout was 85% among this sample, and as with almost all phone samples, there is suspiciously high over-sampling of claimed Labour voters.
Some regions have claimed 90%+ turnout. These are most common in Labour areas.
Basically, a lot of people lie over the phone and say they vote Labour.
Whilst phone polls were better for Tory/Lab last May, they were poorer on left/right than the internet .
It appears that people say Labour when they actually vote UKIP, This is the stigma of people regularly being dubbed racist for holding views about immigration.
It's reasonable to suspect that this follows through in almost all responses on specific issues. The polite answer is given as opposed to the honest one.
Fascinating post, especially for Wales in a few weeks time.
Trump is going to be calling Hilary out as crooked, corrupt and in the pay of the 1% every day from now until November. It's going to be a very nasty campaign indeed.
How fortunate that Trump isn't in the pay of the 1%, what with him being a billionaire and all that.
This is less fantastic than it sounds. Jacques Delors in the not-so-distant past suggested the UK could opt out of the political elements of the EU and have a 'privileged partnership' based mostly on trade. And the Germans more recently have hinted (behind the bluster) that such a deal might be on the table, too.
We are told that Dave was offered the option, but turned it down because he wanted to "dock" the UK with the EU.
Jacques Delors emerged from retirement to propose a “privileged partnership” for Britain, based on free movement of goods and services but not political integration. Guy Verhofstadt, the federalist Euro-liberal leader, made a similar offer, calling it “associate membership”.
But, to the incredulity of Continental Europhiles, David Cameron is pushing only for token changes, most of which can be achieved through domestic legislation without requiring treaty change. He has ruled out campaigning to leave the EU. He has told Jean-Claude Juncker that he intends to use the referendum to, as the President of the European Commission puts it, “dock Britain to the EU”.
Europhile to his well manicured fingernails I am afraid.. and a liar.
This comes as no surprise.
Some of the biggest pro-EU cheerleaders on here have also let that cat out of the bag.
Which is why it's in the national interest for Leave to run this as close as possible.
chestnut - but pollsters predicted Ukip's vote share quite well in the election. But they got Labour too high and the Tories too low. And no-one saw the Lib Dem massacre of seats.
As much as I think big (perhaps unlawful) mistakes were made by South Yorkshire Police, I'm not very happy to see Sheffield Wednesday getting a kicking.
Wednesday are culpable, but it could have been a few other clubs.
Stadium safety isn't like it is these days.
Exactly, this could have happened at White Hart Lane, Villa Park....even Wembley. Semi finals and finals were notorious for fans trying to get in without tickets.
Did they find the design of the stadium didn't meet regulations at the time, or with the benefit of hindsight?
As far as I'm concerned the fences were there to satisfy the FA. Arsenal refused to have fences and that meant they sacrificed the possibility of hosting semi finals. Yes, the ground was dangerous, but only because the police completely botched the crowd management.
Didn't know that about Arsenal, glad to know that at least one club thought that treating fans as animals wasn't the best idea.
I wonder what the political ramifications of a very, very narrow Remain are? Basically half the country want out. That can't be ignored. Bit likewise basically half want in too. Actually I suspect this is not quite true and that over half WANT out but over half will VOTE in because they have been successfully spooked. I smell a neverendum coming.
The last thing the EU will want is a UK still (just) in but forced by public opinion to be frustrating and obstructionist at every turn.
Perhaps they should start campaigning for 'LEAVE'. I think in their shoes that is exactly what I would be doing, gently. Floating the EEA option for example.
This is less fantastic than it sounds. Jacques Delors in the not-so-distant past suggested the UK could opt out of the political elements of the EU and have a 'privileged partnership' based mostly on trade. And the Germans more recently have hinted (behind the bluster) that such a deal might be on the table, too.
It's actually the UK government that has insisted (and still insists) on perpetuating the current half-in, half-out situation which suits nobody and will become increasingly unsustainable as the years proceed.
I think there would be a comfortable majority for that solution in the UK.
Absolutely, but I guess the EU are terrified of a snowball effect. I;ve read that Sweden may look to jump ship if the UK does....Denmark...maybe Holland....
The Dutch are very keen on the Euro (something like 3:1 agree with the "The Euro has been good for the Netherlands, including more than half of all PVV voters!), so I suspect they won't jump.
But I could definitely see Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and even Poland jump.
If there was a group of non-aligned states with the same sort of deal, Britain would be its natural leader - something else I have a feeling the EU wants to avoid. (and America, for that matter).
Although there's o intrinsic reason why that solution couldn't be progressed *within* the EU, formalising a multi-tiered approach.
Well there is because we don't want to join the Eurozone, we will never be part of the core leadership without doing that. I have said it before that out or in should be the option, the status quo doesn't help anyone.
Kudos to Andy Burnham for helping accelerate this process.
I still don't get why Jack Straw refused to look at this.
It wasn't so long ago when the police were utterly respected, and football fans of the 80s were viewed with disdain.
I'm a Liverpool fan who lives in Sheffield (and at the time of the disaster), my Father was one of the docs who went to the hospitals to help on the day of the disaster, I didn't realise what had gone on until I started going to Anfield in the late 90s and speaking to the fans.
I accepted the official narrative up to that point, to my eternal regret.
Me too. Same with Menezes, Rotherham and Bloody Sunday.
Net result?
I now don't take anything the British authorities say at face value, or anyone else for that matter.
Hillsborough disaster inquest rules 96 victims were unlawfully killed and no behaviour on the part of football supporters which caused or contributed to the deaths.
Well that's just silly.
The unlawful killing I can go with - the police acted in a grossly negligent way, as well as other authorities' failings - but would the deaths have occurred had the fans observed proper queuing behaviour outside the ground? You can't absolve those who rushed through the gates of their share of blame.
A 4% shift is only margin or error, and we need to see other polls before coming to judgement. However, there is polling evidence that many voters are unhappy at Obama's intervention.
Is "REMAINtheGovt" next cunning stunt going to be Mrs Merkel or M. Hollande to help things along?
I'm expecting an assault on recipients of pensions. Something along the lines of Brexit will destroy the City/investment firms will all leave, and your pension will be worthless blah blah.
And Brexit will steal your Tax Credits or other nonsense.
FPT @Indigo ask yourself why indeed no serious party has included Brexit in their manifesto.
Because they like disenfranchising a third or more of the electorate ?
We live in a democracy. If there's a need for a party to promote that policy, one will arise. As it has.
In any case, by offering an In/Out referendum, the Tories *did* include a Brexit option in their manifesto. If I remember rightly, the Lib Dems even picked up some Leaver support in 2005 on that basis.
Hillsborough disaster inquest rules 96 victims were unlawfully killed and no behaviour on the part of football supporters which caused or contributed to the deaths.
Well that's just silly.
The unlawful killing I can go with - the police acted in a grossly negligent way, as well as other authorities' failings - but would the deaths have occurred had the fans observed proper queuing behaviour outside the ground? You can't absolve those who rushed through the gates of their share of blame.
QUESTION 7: Behaviour of the supporters
Was there any behaviour on the part of the football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles? Yes or no.
No.
I would like to know more how they reached this decision.
Looks like after 27 years, the Hillsborough families are finally getting justice.
Wow! 96 unlawful killings according to the BBC. Finally justice is delivered.
And this
7) Jury agrees - there was no behaviour on part of supporters which contributed to situation
I'm coming round to your sceptical view of the police.
And I speak as someone who has two close members of my family serving in it.
Ask anyone who has ever accepted a caution, they will tell you what a bunch of duplicitous shits the police are.
You should always refuse a caution?
Always, if they had such a strong case, they would take it to court, and not offer a caution.
The number of people who are effectively bullied/shamed into taking cautions is a national scandal.
The conversation goes something like this
'Accept a caution, or you'll be charged, you might be placed on remand, it'll be in the papers, your family will be embarrassed, or you can accept a caution and walk out of here without a stain on your character'
Frightened person accepts caution, thinks nothing of it, few years later applies for a job that requires a CRB/DBS and turns out they do have a stain on their character.
Trump is going to be calling Hilary out as crooked, corrupt and in the pay of the 1% every day from now until November. It's going to be a very nasty campaign indeed.
How fortunate that Trump isn't in the pay of the 1%, what with him being a billionaire and all that.
He is IN the 1%, he happily boasts about that.
He isn't on the payroll of the 1%, put in Washington to do what his paymasters want him to do - whether or not it's good for the people who elected him.
Trump's line against Hillary will be that she accepted $x million from Bank X before speaking/voting/advocating for their position. Ditto Media Company Y and Pharma Company Z. It's a hugely powerful argument from Trump, who's never received political donations in his life.
Hillsborough disaster inquest rules 96 victims were unlawfully killed and no behaviour on the part of football supporters which caused or contributed to the deaths.
Well that's just silly.
The unlawful killing I can go with - the police acted in a grossly negligent way, as well as other authorities' failings - but would the deaths have occurred had the fans observed proper queuing behaviour outside the ground? You can't absolve those who rushed through the gates of their share of blame.
Would there even have been cages if it hadn't been for the abysmal behaviour of some fans of all clubs? Surely that point is at least debatable.
Hillsborough disaster inquest rules 96 victims were unlawfully killed and no behaviour on the part of football supporters which caused or contributed to the deaths.
Well that's just silly.
The unlawful killing I can go with - the police acted in a grossly negligent way, as well as other authorities' failings - but would the deaths have occurred had the fans observed proper queuing behaviour outside the ground? You can't absolve those who rushed through the gates of their share of blame.
Football fans are excited crowds. That's why it's the responsibility of the authorities to manage how they get into the stadia, with proper queues and barriers outside the ground and staff and not telling fans to go into an already overcrowded area. The authorities failed. It is right they be held responsible.
Looks like after 27 years, the Hillsborough families are finally getting justice.
Wow! 96 unlawful killings according to the BBC. Finally justice is delivered.
And this
7) Jury agrees - there was no behaviour on part of supporters which contributed to situation
I'm coming round to your sceptical view of the police.
And I speak as someone who has two close members of my family serving in it.
Ask anyone who has ever accepted a caution, they will tell you what a bunch of duplicitous shits the police are.
You should always refuse a caution?
Always, if they had such a strong case, they would take it to court, and not offer a caution.
The number of people who are effectively bullied/shamed into taking cautions is a national scandal.
The conversation goes something like this
'Accept a caution, or you'll be charged, you might be placed on remand, it'll be in the papers, your family will be embarrassed, or you can accept a caution and walk out of here without a stain on your character'
Frightened person accepts caution, thinks nothing of it, few years later applies for a job that requires a CRB/DBS and turns out they do have a stain on their character.
Thanks. I think a lot of people in this country get done over by dodgy contracts and straw man threats.
My wife is a lawyer, and almost always smokes this stuff out so we're alright, but I've never thought it's fair on those who can't afford legal advice or simply don't understand and are stressed/scared.
Hillsborough disaster inquest rules 96 victims were unlawfully killed and no behaviour on the part of football supporters which caused or contributed to the deaths.
Well that's just silly.
The unlawful killing I can go with - the police acted in a grossly negligent way, as well as other authorities' failings - but would the deaths have occurred had the fans observed proper queuing behaviour outside the ground? You can't absolve those who rushed through the gates of their share of blame.
QUESTION 7: Behaviour of the supporters
Was there any behaviour on the part of the football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles? Yes or no.
No.
I would like to know more how they reached this decision.
Looks like after 27 years, the Hillsborough families are finally getting justice.
Wow! 96 unlawful killings according to the BBC. Finally justice is delivered.
And this
7) Jury agrees - there was no behaviour on part of supporters which contributed to situation
I'm coming round to your sceptical view of the police.
And I speak as someone who has two close members of my family serving in it.
Ask anyone who has ever accepted a caution, they will tell you what a bunch of duplicitous shits the police are.
Never accept a caution, if at all possible. Although they are usually 'spent' immediately (and thus would not have to be declared for insurance purposes for instance) - they would be disclosed if an enhanced DBS (CRB) were required.
Although it is not technically classed as a conviction (as only the Courts can convict someone) it can be taken into consideration by the Courts if the person is convicted of a further offence.
Cautions will always remain on a person's record. There are only exceptional circumstances when a caution could be removed from a person's record and it is anticipated that such incidents will be rare. Examples of such possible circumstances are that it was found that the original arrest or sample was unlawful or where it was found beyond all doubt that no offence existed. - the police.
I would like to know more how they reached this decision.
From what I've read in the last few minutes I think the people by the turnstiles were unaware that there was any problem in the grounds. According to wikipedia, the Taylor report described them moving in to the stadium at a fast walk. I'm not sure how that makes them responsible, given that's how they'd be walking in if there wasn't a problem.
Hillsborough disaster inquest rules 96 victims were unlawfully killed and no behaviour on the part of football supporters which caused or contributed to the deaths.
Well that's just silly.
The unlawful killing I can go with - the police acted in a grossly negligent way, as well as other authorities' failings - but would the deaths have occurred had the fans observed proper queuing behaviour outside the ground? You can't absolve those who rushed through the gates of their share of blame.
The problem has always been that any criticism of Liverpool fans has always been interpreted as blaming those that died. In my opinion the relatives of those that died should be annoyed at both the police and other supporters. I seem to remember a relative of one of the deceased being particularly critical of the way Liverpool fans behaved in Athens at the 2007 Champions League Final, so I suspect some relatives are aware that it was simply a case of bad policing.
A 4% shift is only margin or error, and we need to see other polls before coming to judgement. However, there is polling evidence that many voters are unhappy at Obama's intervention.
Is "REMAINtheGovt" next cunning stunt going to be Mrs Merkel or M. Hollande to help things along?
I'm expecting an assault on recipients of pensions. Something along the lines of Brexit will destroy the City/investment firms will all leave, and your pension will be worthless blah blah.
And Brexit will steal your Tax Credits or other nonsense.
It will be pitiless.
But we can't stop such an assault, and Vote Leave have been heavily warned.
If the people of the UK want to leave the EU now, or every five years from 2020, they can do so.
We get this tired argument trotted out all the time, it would be nice to hear a different tune.
People would vote for say the Tories proposing to leave as part of their manifesto, and quite likely Labour as well, UKIP not so much. People may well feel a strong desire to leave the EU, but that doesn't mean they will elect just anyone to run their country for five years to achieve it. If what you say is true George Galloway could put "leave" on the front of his manifesto and get 30% of the vote, seem unlikely.
The problem is now no one would believe either of the main parties even if the put it front and square in their manifesto.
tl;dr: A desire, even a rampant desire to be out the EU does not mean you are prepared to inflict a bunch of fecking idiots on your country for five years to achieve it.
My point is that for some reason no serious political party includes Brexit in their manifesto or makes it a campaign promise. Either they do that because they are part of the conspiracy, or they do it because they don't think it fits in with their world view, or they do it because they don't think it will win them an election. Whichever of those, if they really thought it was a vote winner, as an integral part of all the other things they believe in, then they would put it in (the Cons would have elected DD, for a start instead of DC).
And @Patrick wrt UKIP, I have long thought, and continue to believe that they are a single-issue pressure group. A very successful one but no more.
I would like to know more how they reached this decision.
From what I've read in the last few minutes I think the people by the turnstiles were unaware that there was any problem in the grounds. According to wikipedia, the Taylor report described them moving in to the stadium at a fast walk. I'm not sure how that makes them responsible, given that's how they'd be walking in if there wasn't a problem.
But is it true that people went in illegally i.e without tickets of their own free will? Or were they "forced" to go through by the police. If it was the former, I don't understand how you can answer no to this question (I should add I have real issue with the jury being forced to answer a questionnaire of questions which are not their own with yes or no responses).
I don't know the answer, but it seems an important part of the story.
Always, if they had such a strong case, they would take it to court, and not offer a caution.
These two videos are American, but essential viewing, it tells you why you should not talk to a policeman, first half is given by a law professor who used to be a defense attorney, the second and in many ways more interesting by a 30 year experienced police officer and interviewer.
The last thing the EU will want is a UK still (just) in but forced by public opinion to be frustrating and obstructionist at every turn.
Perhaps they should start campaigning for 'LEAVE'. I think in their shoes that is exactly what I would be doing, gently. Floating the EEA option for example.
This is less fantastic than it sounds. Jacques Delors in the not-so-distant past suggested the UK could opt out of the political elements of the EU and have a 'privileged partnership' based mostly on trade. And the Germans more recently have hinted (behind the bluster) that such a deal might be on the table, too.
It's actually the UK government that has insisted (and still insists) on perpetuating the current half-in, half-out situation which suits nobody and will become increasingly unsustainable as the years proceed.
I think there would be a comfortable majority for that solution in the UK.
Absolutely, but I guess the EU are terrified of a snowball effect. I;ve read that Sweden may look to jump ship if the UK does....Denmark...maybe Holland....
The Dutch are very keen on the Euro (something like 3:1 agree with the "The Euro has been good for the Netherlands, including more than half of all PVV voters!), so I suspect they won't jump.
But I could definitely see Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and even Poland jump.
If there was a group of non-aligned states with the same sort of deal, Britain would be its natural leader - something else I have a feeling the EU wants to avoid. (and America, for that matter).
Although there's o intrinsic reason why that solution couldn't be progressed *within* the EU, formalising a multi-tiered approach.
Well there is because we don't want to join the Eurozone, we will never be part of the core leadership without doing that. I have said it before that out or in should be the option, the status quo doesn't help anyone.
I don't think that's necessarily true, particularly if there was a block of eight or so non-EZ countries; Britain would be the natural leader of them. Simply by weight of numbers, they'd have to listen (but also because the outer group would be the awkward squad).
It would all depend on the extent to which the EUelite were prepared to accept and accommodate the reality of a growing scepticism.
I would like to know more how they reached this decision.
From what I've read in the last few minutes I think the people by the turnstiles were unaware that there was any problem in the grounds. According to wikipedia, the Taylor report described them moving in to the stadium at a fast walk. I'm not sure how that makes them responsible, given that's how they'd be walking in if there wasn't a problem.
But is it true that people went in illegally i.e without tickets of their own free will? Or were they "forced" to go through by the police. If it was the former, I don't understand how you can answer no to this question (I should add I have real issue with the jury being forced to answer a questionnaire of questions which are not their own with yes or no responses).
I don't know the answer, but it seems an important part of the story.
The wikipedia article states that the Taylor report dismissed this:
The possibility of fans attempting to gain entry without tickets or with forged tickets was suggested as a contributing factor. South Yorkshire Police suggested the late arrival of fans amounted to a conspiracy to gain entry without tickets. However, analysis of the electronic monitoring system, Health and Safety Executive analysis, and eyewitness accounts showed that the total number of people who entered the Leppings Lane end was below the official capacity of the stand. Eye witness reports suggested that tickets were available on the day and tickets for the Leppings Lane end were on sale from Anfield until the day before. The report dismissed the conspiracy theory.
I would like to know more how they reached this decision.
From what I've read in the last few minutes I think the people by the turnstiles were unaware that there was any problem in the grounds. According to wikipedia, the Taylor report described them moving in to the stadium at a fast walk. I'm not sure how that makes them responsible, given that's how they'd be walking in if there wasn't a problem.
But is it true that people went in illegally i.e without tickets of their own free will? Or were they "forced" to go through by the police. If it was the former, I don't understand how you can answer no to this question (I should add I have real issue with the jury being forced to answer a questionnaire of questions which are not their own with yes or no responses).
I don't know the answer, but it seems an important part of the story.
I think the answer we don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were supporters without tickets - though maybe not that many. What annoyed me a few years ago was a documentary that made reference to the fact that Liverpool got the smaller Leppings Lane end of the stadium. As far as I'm concerned that is not a relevant fact unless you are justifying Liverpool fans entering without tickets.
My point is that for some reason no serious political party includes Brexit in their manifesto or makes it a campaign promise. Either they do that because they are part of the conspiracy, or they do it because they don't think it fits in with their world view, or they do it because they don't think it will win them an election.
It doesn't fit with their world view, all politicians are by definition part of the elite, and all have a vested interest in preserving the status quo, especially when that status quo offers lots of well remunerated and interesting jobs to politicians that no longer command the confidence of the voters.
One of the rather few attractive things about Farage is he openly says that he has no desire to run the country, he wants to get the UK out of Europe, and if he sits there just running a pressure group, its wont happen. The only ways to make it happen is to get inside the system, which unfortunately involves having lots of policies on all sorts of things they are not terribly interested in. The problem with this of course is that this means you have to hire a party machine that does like, and is interested in this sort of stuff, and then you are in danger of becoming part of the problem and not the solution.
I would like to know more how they reached this decision.
From what I've read in the last few minutes I think the people by the turnstiles were unaware that there was any problem in the grounds. According to wikipedia, the Taylor report described them moving in to the stadium at a fast walk. I'm not sure how that makes them responsible, given that's how they'd be walking in if there wasn't a problem.
But is it true that people went in illegally i.e without tickets of their own free will? Or were they "forced" to go through by the police. If it was the former, I don't understand how you can answer no to this question (I should add I have real issue with the jury being forced to answer a questionnaire of questions which are not their own with yes or no responses).
I don't know the answer, but it seems an important part of the story.
The wikipedia article states that the Taylor report dismissed this:
The possibility of fans attempting to gain entry without tickets or with forged tickets was suggested as a contributing factor. South Yorkshire Police suggested the late arrival of fans amounted to a conspiracy to gain entry without tickets. However, analysis of the electronic monitoring system, Health and Safety Executive analysis, and eyewitness accounts showed that the total number of people who entered the Leppings Lane end was below the official capacity of the stand. Eye witness reports suggested that tickets were available on the day and tickets for the Leppings Lane end were on sale from Anfield until the day before. The report dismissed the conspiracy theory.
So why was a gates opened and if the end wasn't over capacity, why the crush. Again, I don't know the answers, I would have hoped that this inquiry would help answer this properly unlike previous attempts and rather than, NO, YES, YES, YES, NO...
I would like to know more how they reached this decision.
From what I've read in the last few minutes I think the people by the turnstiles were unaware that there was any problem in the grounds. According to wikipedia, the Taylor report described them moving in to the stadium at a fast walk. I'm not sure how that makes them responsible, given that's how they'd be walking in if there wasn't a problem.
But is it true that people went in illegally i.e without tickets of their own free will? Or were they "forced" to go through by the police. If it was the former, I don't understand how you can answer no to this question (I should add I have real issue with the jury being forced to answer a questionnaire of questions which are not their own with yes or no responses).
I don't know the answer, but it seems an important part of the story.
The wikipedia article states that the Taylor report dismissed this:
The possibility of fans attempting to gain entry without tickets or with forged tickets was suggested as a contributing factor. South Yorkshire Police suggested the late arrival of fans amounted to a conspiracy to gain entry without tickets. However, analysis of the electronic monitoring system, Health and Safety Executive analysis, and eyewitness accounts showed that the total number of people who entered the Leppings Lane end was below the official capacity of the stand. Eye witness reports suggested that tickets were available on the day and tickets for the Leppings Lane end were on sale from Anfield until the day before. The report dismissed the conspiracy theory.
So why was a gates opened and if the end wasn't over capacity, why the crush. Again, I don't know the answers, I would have hoped that this inquiry would help answer this properly unlike previous attempts and rather than, NO, YES, YES, YES, NO...
Wait until the narrative is released. Should be today.
On Hillsborough - clearly the police handled the situation badly, though ultimately they were put in a difficult position given the poor condition of the stadium which should never have been used - at least not that size of crowd. The safety certificate was 10 years out of date and they were used to crowds about half the level that was allocated. Whether there were fans without tickets we'll never know, but the central problem wasn't the total number of fans but there being too many in one area - and they were not given any directions for a stadium many of them wouldn't know well.
One thing I've never got was why there was this previous 3.15pm cut off point. Not least since the failure of the medical response was so obvious.
Trump is going to be calling Hilary out as crooked, corrupt and in the pay of the 1% every day from now until November. It's going to be a very nasty campaign indeed.
How fortunate that Trump isn't in the pay of the 1%, what with him being a billionaire and all that.
Isn't that part of why Trump does so well though? He is rich enough that he can't be corrupted like Hillary or Cruz.
In every single debate Trump is going to wave around Hillary's donor list and compare it to his, in every single response he will tear her links to Wall Street to shreds and he will be absolutely ruthless in doing so.
I would like to know more how they reached this decision.
From what I've read in the last few minutes I think the people by the turnstiles were unaware that there was any problem in the grounds. According to wikipedia, the Taylor report described them moving in to the stadium at a fast walk. I'm not sure how that makes them responsible, given that's how they'd be walking in if there wasn't a problem.
But is it true that people went in illegally i.e without tickets of their own free will? Or were they "forced" to go through by the police. If it was the former, I don't understand how you can answer no to this question (I should add I have real issue with the jury being forced to answer a questionnaire of questions which are not their own with yes or no responses).
I don't know the answer, but it seems an important part of the story.
The wikipedia article states that the Taylor report dismissed this:
The possibility of fans attempting to gain entry without tickets or with forged tickets was suggested as a contributing factor. South Yorkshire Police suggested the late arrival of fans amounted to a conspiracy to gain entry without tickets. However, analysis of the electronic monitoring system, Health and Safety Executive analysis, and eyewitness accounts showed that the total number of people who entered the Leppings Lane end was below the official capacity of the stand. Eye witness reports suggested that tickets were available on the day and tickets for the Leppings Lane end were on sale from Anfield until the day before. The report dismissed the conspiracy theory.
So why was a gates opened and if the end wasn't over capacity, why the crush. Again, I don't know the answers, I would have hoped that this inquiry would help answer this properly unlike previous attempts and rather than, NO, YES, YES, YES, NO...
From my very brief read up of the situation, I think it is because the two central pens were to capacity, but the adjacent pens were not? Typically, there would be someone diverting supporters to the adjacent ones once the central ones were full, but this did not happen on that day.
Always, if they had such a strong case, they would take it to court, and not offer a caution.
These two videos are American, but essential viewing, it tells you why you should not talk to a policeman, first half is given by a law professor who used to be a defense attorney, the second and in many ways more interesting by a 30 year experienced police officer and interviewer.
Informative and entertaining (still watching the first one..)
Always, if they had such a strong case, they would take it to court, and not offer a caution.
These two videos are American, but essential viewing, it tells you why you should not talk to a policeman, first half is given by a law professor who used to be a defense attorney, the second and in many ways more interesting by a 30 year experienced police officer and interviewer.
Describing the police in general as "duplicitous shits" is unreasonable. There are good, conscientious officers, and those who do indeed count as "duplicitous shits." My own experience is pretty positive. I have a close relative who suffers from bi-polar disorder, and have always found the police a good deal more sensitive and sensible in their dealings with this relative than NHS workers are.
Hillsborough disaster inquest rules 96 victims were unlawfully killed and no behaviour on the part of football supporters which caused or contributed to the deaths.
Well that's just silly.
The unlawful killing I can go with - the police acted in a grossly negligent way, as well as other authorities' failings - but would the deaths have occurred had the fans observed proper queuing behaviour outside the ground? You can't absolve those who rushed through the gates of their share of blame.
Football fans are excited crowds. That's why it's the responsibility of the authorities to manage how they get into the stadia, with proper queues and barriers outside the ground and staff and not telling fans to go into an already overcrowded area. The authorities failed. It is right they be held responsible.
I don't dispute that there were gross failings on the part of many authorities, the SYP above all. However, the notion that "no behaviour on the part of football supporters ...caused or contributed to the deaths" is something I simply can't agree with because had they stayed outside until let in through the turnstiles, it wouldn't have happened.
Describing the police in general as "duplicitous shits" is unreasonable. There are good, conscientious officers, and those who do indeed count as "duplicitous shits." My own experience is pretty positive. I have a close relative who suffers from bi-polar disorder, and have always found the police a good deal more sensitive and sensible in their dealings with this relative than NHS workers are.
I didn't, I think that might have been Mr Eagles.
I still wouldn't have anything to say without my lawyer present.
Hillsborough disaster inquest rules 96 victims were unlawfully killed and no behaviour on the part of football supporters which caused or contributed to the deaths.
Well that's just silly.
The unlawful killing I can go with - the police acted in a grossly negligent way, as well as other authorities' failings - but would the deaths have occurred had the fans observed proper queuing behaviour outside the ground? You can't absolve those who rushed through the gates of their share of blame.
QUESTION 7: Behaviour of the supporters
Was there any behaviour on the part of the football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles? Yes or no.
No.
I would like to know more how they reached this decision.
Would you want to be the juror who said 'yes?'
I wouldn't.
This is the only question of the 14 that I have concerns about. Are the jury really saying that there weren't fans without tickets trying to get in? Because surely they can't be saying that fans without tickets trying to get in didn't contribute to the disaster.
I would like to know more how they reached this decision.
From what I've read in the last few minutes I think the people by the turnstiles were unaware that there was any problem in the grounds. According to wikipedia, the Taylor report described them moving in to the stadium at a fast walk. I'm not sure how that makes them responsible, given that's how they'd be walking in if there wasn't a problem.
But is it true that people went in illegally i.e without tickets of their own free will? Or were they "forced" to go through by the police. If it was the former, I don't understand how you can answer no to this question (I should add I have real issue with the jury being forced to answer a questionnaire of questions which are not their own with yes or no responses).
I don't know the answer, but it seems an important part of the story.
The wikipedia article states that the Taylor report dismissed this:
The possibility of fans attempting to gain entry without tickets or with forged tickets was suggested as a contributing factor. South Yorkshire Police suggested the late arrival of fans amounted to a conspiracy to gain entry without tickets. However, analysis of the electronic monitoring system, Health and Safety Executive analysis, and eyewitness accounts showed that the total number of people who entered the Leppings Lane end was below the official capacity of the stand. Eye witness reports suggested that tickets were available on the day and tickets for the Leppings Lane end were on sale from Anfield until the day before. The report dismissed the conspiracy theory.
So why was a gates opened and if the end wasn't over capacity, why the crush. Again, I don't know the answers, I would have hoped that this inquiry would help answer this properly unlike previous attempts and rather than, NO, YES, YES, YES, NO...
From my very brief read up of the situation, I think it is because the two central pens were to capacity, but the adjacent pens were not? Typically, there would be someone diverting supporters to the adjacent ones once the central ones were full, but this did not happen on that day.
That was my understanding too. The opening of the outside exit gate allowed people to come in faster than expected, and they natuarally went for the centre pens rather than the outside pens; with no-one there to stop them the crush was inevitable.
There is a huge disparity between the ORB polling for the Telegraph, claiming 1 in 5 still undecided and yet the tables show ORB regularly at 5% or less for DK/WV - Am I reading it wrong?
The Queen can vote, as can members of her family, but they do not do so because in practice it would be considered unconstitutional.
None of the royals are members of the HoL as they were booted out with the hereditary peers (which was daft for those who had been awarded peerages themselves). Not that it would matter for the referendum as peers will be able to vote in it.
Nice to have a bit of good news, but I'm not buying this whatsoever. Firstly, I have no idea who ORB are, and secondly wtf are 3 percent don't knows? If that were true, Remain would have it in the bag.
I don't think that's necessarily true, particularly if there was a block of eight or so non-EZ countries; Britain would be the natural leader of them. Simply by weight of numbers, they'd have to listen (but also because the outer group would be the awkward squad).
It would all depend on the extent to which the EUelite were prepared to accept and accommodate the reality of a growing scepticism.
Well all the countries not currently in the EMU are obliged to join except the UK and Denmark, Denmark is in ERM II though so it's currency is pegged to the Euro. Sweden are using a loophole to keep themselves out indefinitely under an older set of entry rules. Every other nation must join the EMU which makes it 25 vs 3, or 26 vs 2 because Denmark are in ERM II.
This idea that there will be an outer bloc of non-EMU nations is a complete fallacy, it just isn't going to happen, joining the EMU is now a requirement of joining the EU, a point the SNP spectacularly failed to address in the independence campaign.
Why would temporarily non-EMU nations cosy up to the UK and possibly Swe/Den when they are going to be in the other club at some point anyway?
As for accepting growing scepticism, well I think we're back to wishful thinking again, there is no evidence that the EU has taken even the slightest notice of growing scepticism. The EUParl has the highest proportion of sceptics and outers ever and how did the EU react? They made an arch-federalist the EC president and his leftist mirror image the EUParl president.
Hi all. First, thanks to Morris_Dancer for stating my case Secondly, thanks to rcs1000 for getting me able to post again.
Trouble is all is OK for a few days or weeks, and then for no reason at all I can't post in PB. Very queer, that. Never mind, Saturday is my birthday and I will be 82, but still out there scrambling away.
On Hillsborough - clearly the police handled the situation badly, though ultimately they were put in a difficult position given the poor condition of the stadium which should never have been used - at least not that size of crowd. The safety certificate was 10 years out of date and they were used to crowds about half the level that was allocated. Whether there were fans without tickets we'll never know, but the central problem wasn't the total number of fans but there being too many in one area - and they were not given any directions for a stadium many of them wouldn't know well.
One thing I've never got was why there was this previous 3.15pm cut off point. Not least since the failure of the medical response was so obvious.
The previous year the exact same fixture was played at Hillsborough:
The supporters were at the same ends and, while there were some reports of crushing, that was far from unusual for the times (not saying that it was right, of course).
As I understand it, the big difference was that the police did not operate a ring of police away from the stadium in 1989. So supporters were able to walk up to the ground without showing a ticket. This led to a crush outside the ground which ultimately led to the gate being opened.
I would like to know more how they reached this decision.
From what I've read in the last few minutes I think the people by the turnstiles were unaware that there was any problem in the grounds. According to wikipedia, the Taylor report described them moving in to the stadium at a fast walk. I'm not sure how that makes them responsible, given that's how they'd be walking in if there wasn't a problem.
But is it true that people went in illegally i.e without tickets of their own free will? Or were they "forced" to go through by the police. If it was the former, I don't understand how you can answer no to this question (I should add I have real issue with the jury being forced to answer a questionnaire of questions which are not their own with yes or no responses).
I don't know the answer, but it seems an important part of the story.
The wikipedia article states that the Taylor report dismissed this:
The possibility of fans attempting to gain entry without tickets or with forged tickets was suggested as a contributing factor. South Yorkshire Police suggested the late arrival of fans amounted to a conspiracy to gain entry without tickets. However, analysis of the electronic monitoring system, Health and Safety Executive analysis, and eyewitness accounts showed that the total number of people who entered the Leppings Lane end was below the official capacity of the stand. Eye witness reports suggested that tickets were available on the day and tickets for the Leppings Lane end were on sale from Anfield until the day before. The report dismissed the conspiracy theory.
I'm not sure Wikipedia is unbiased on this one.
The question is not whether there was space in the stand, it's how quickly fans entered the ground. A regular trickle, as regulated by turnstiles, allows fans to find a place on the terrace; a rapid flood - caused, for example, by many fans coming through an open gate - gives them little time or space to fan out and forced them on into the central pen.
Hillsborough disaster inquest rules 96 victims were unlawfully killed and no behaviour on the part of football supporters which caused or contributed to the deaths.
Well that's just silly.
The unlawful killing I can go with - the police acted in a grossly negligent way, as well as other authorities' failings - but would the deaths have occurred had the fans observed proper queuing behaviour outside the ground? You can't absolve those who rushed through the gates of their share of blame.
QUESTION 7: Behaviour of the supporters
Was there any behaviour on the part of the football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles? Yes or no.
No.
I would like to know more how they reached this decision.
Would you want to be the juror who said 'yes?'
I wouldn't.
This is the only question of the 14 that I have concerns about. Are the jury really saying that there weren't fans without tickets trying to get in? Because surely they can't be saying that fans without tickets trying to get in didn't contribute to the disaster.
The police should have had the kick-off delayed, and/or deployed extra resources to dealing with the queue outside the ground. Ticketless fans hoping to get into a semi-final was hardly news to the organisers.
Opening the exit was always going to lead to a crush inside where the fans already there had nowhere to go.
This is less fantastic than it sounds. Jacques Delors in the not-so-distant past suggested the UK could opt out of the political elements of the EU and have a 'privileged partnership' based mostly on trade. And the Germans more recently have hinted (behind the bluster) that such a deal might be on the table, too.
We are told that Dave was offered the option, but turned it down because he wanted to "dock" the UK with the EU.
Jacques Delors emerged from retirement to propose a “privileged partnership” for Britain, based on free movement of goods and services but not political integration. Guy Verhofstadt, the federalist Euro-liberal leader, made a similar offer, calling it “associate membership”.
But, to the incredulity of Continental Europhiles, David Cameron is pushing only for token changes, most of which can be achieved through domestic legislation without requiring treaty change. He has ruled out campaigning to leave the EU. He has told Jean-Claude Juncker that he intends to use the referendum to, as the President of the European Commission puts it, “dock Britain to the EU”.
Europhile to his well manicured fingernails I am afraid.. and a liar.
I've brought this up before, and it needs to be repeated to anyone who'll listen.
There have also been other opportunities for even a mildly eurosceptic government to get a better relationship with Europe in the past few years, and they've been ignored.
There was a huge crush at Hillsborough for the Spurs v Wolves semi-final a few years before. As with Liverpool v Forest, they gave the better supported club the smaller end. But unlike that game, they opened the terracing gates to let the Spurs fans out onto the pitch once the crush was really on. Incredibly, the whole game was played with fans sitting on the grass only a few inches behind the perimeter lines.
Always, if they had such a strong case, they would take it to court, and not offer a caution.
These two videos are American, but essential viewing, it tells you why you should not talk to a policeman, first half is given by a law professor who used to be a defense attorney, the second and in many ways more interesting by a 30 year experienced police officer and interviewer.
Describing the police in general as "duplicitous shits" is unreasonable. There are good, conscientious officers, and those who do indeed count as "duplicitous shits." My own experience is pretty positive. I have a close relative who suffers from bi-polar disorder, and have always found the police a good deal more sensitive and sensible in their dealings with this relative than NHS workers are.
My comment was aimed at the officers who tell people to accept cautions because it won't cause them hassle now or any problems in the future.
Hillsborough disaster inquest rules 96 victims were unlawfully killed and no behaviour on the part of football supporters which caused or contributed to the deaths.
Well that's just silly.
The unlawful killing I can go with - the police acted in a grossly negligent way, as well as other authorities' failings - but would the deaths have occurred had the fans observed proper queuing behaviour outside the ground? You can't absolve those who rushed through the gates of their share of blame.
Football fans are excited crowds. That's why it's the responsibility of the authorities to manage how they get into the stadia, with proper queues and barriers outside the ground and staff and not telling fans to go into an already overcrowded area. The authorities failed. It is right they be held responsible.
I don't dispute that there were gross failings on the part of many authorities, the SYP above all. However, the notion that "no behaviour on the part of football supporters ...caused or contributed to the deaths" is something I simply can't agree with because had they stayed outside until let in through the turnstiles, it wouldn't have happened.
That struck me as a bizarre statement. It was obviously a contributing factor to some extent.
There was a huge crush at Hillsborough for the Spurs v Wolves semi-final a few years before. As with Liverpool v Forest, they gave the better supported club the smaller end. But unlike that game, they opened the terracing gates to let the Spurs fans out onto the pitch once the crush was really on. Incredibly, the whole game was played with fans sitting on the grass only a few inches behind the perimeter lines.
Hillsborough disaster inquest rules 96 victims were unlawfully killed and no behaviour on the part of football supporters which caused or contributed to the deaths.
Well that's just silly.
The unlawful killing I can go with - the police acted in a grossly negligent way, as well as other authorities' failings - but would the deaths have occurred had the fans observed proper queuing behaviour outside the ground? You can't absolve those who rushed through the gates of their share of blame.
Football fans are excited crowds. That's why it's the responsibility of the authorities to manage how they get into the stadia, with proper queues and barriers outside the ground and staff and not telling fans to go into an already overcrowded area. The authorities failed. It is right they be held responsible.
I don't dispute that there were gross failings on the part of many authorities, the SYP above all. However, the notion that "no behaviour on the part of football supporters ...caused or contributed to the deaths" is something I simply can't agree with because had they stayed outside until let in through the turnstiles, it wouldn't have happened.
I don't think that's necessarily true, particularly if there was a block of eight or so non-EZ countries; Britain would be the natural leader of them. Simply by weight of numbers, they'd have to listen (but also because the outer group would be the awkward squad).
It would all depend on the extent to which the EUelite were prepared to accept and accommodate the reality of a growing scepticism.
Well all the countries not currently in the EMU are obliged to join except the UK and Denmark, Denmark is in ERM II though so it's currency is pegged to the Euro. Sweden are using a loophole to keep themselves out indefinitely under an older set of entry rules. Every other nation must join the EMU which makes it 25 vs 3, or 26 vs 2 because Denmark are in ERM II.
This idea that there will be an outer bloc of non-EMU nations is a complete fallacy, it just isn't going to happen, joining the EMU is now a requirement of joining the EU, a point the SNP spectacularly failed to address in the independence campaign.
Why would temporarily non-EMU nations cosy up to the UK and possibly Swe/Den when they are going to be in the other club at some point anyway?
As for accepting growing scepticism, well I think we're back to wishful thinking again, there is no evidence that the EU has taken even the slightest notice of growing scepticism. The EUParl has the highest proportion of sceptics and outers ever and how did the EU react? They made an arch-federalist the EC president and his leftist mirror image the EUParl president.
Yes, we still have these kinds of lame arguments surfacing don't we?
That we can stay in and somehow 'reform' things in the direction 'we want',
or that the other member states will 'come to their senses' and reshape the EU as 'we want',
or that 'it will collapse anyway soon'
or worst of all 'if we leave it will all collapse and everything will be dreadful so we must stay in to stop that'.
All these are just excuses for not acting. Sometimes they are sincerely meant, if misguided, sometimes they are the refuges of those who are frightened, other times they are just dissembling.
We have one chance to really alter our relationship with the EU states in the way 'we want', and it comes from voting LEAVE in June. All else is, frankly, fluff.
There was a huge crush at Hillsborough for the Spurs v Wolves semi-final a few years before. As with Liverpool v Forest, they gave the better supported club the smaller end. But unlike that game, they opened the terracing gates to let the Spurs fans out onto the pitch once the crush was really on. Incredibly, the whole game was played with fans sitting on the grass only a few inches behind the perimeter lines.
Interesting comment.
Did the report from that event and critisicm of the club/security/policing from the FA lead them to be more unwilling to open the gates the next time the same situation occurred.?
This is less fantastic than it sounds. Jacques Delors in the not-so-distant past suggested the UK could opt out of the political elements of the EU and have a 'privileged partnership' based mostly on trade. And the Germans more recently have hinted (behind the bluster) that such a deal might be on the table, too.
We are told that Dave was offered the option, but turned it down because he wanted to "dock" the UK with the EU.
Jacques Delors emerged from retirement to propose a “privileged partnership” for Britain, based on free movement of goods and services but not political integration. Guy Verhofstadt, the federalist Euro-liberal leader, made a similar offer, calling it “associate membership”.
But, to the incredulity of Continental Europhiles, David Cameron is pushing only for token changes, most of which can be achieved through domestic legislation without requiring treaty change. He has ruled out campaigning to leave the EU. He has told Jean-Claude Juncker that he intends to use the referendum to, as the President of the European Commission puts it, “dock Britain to the EU”.
Europhile to his well manicured fingernails I am afraid.. and a liar.
I've brought this up before, and it needs to be repeated to anyone who'll listen.
There have also been other opportunities for even a mildly eurosceptic government to get a better relationship with Europe in the past few years, and they've been ignored.
For clarity, Indigo said that and I just fell foul of the block quoting issue with vanilla.
My view is that David Cameron has the establishment view on the EU.
Hillsborough disaster inquest rules 96 victims were unlawfully killed and no behaviour on the part of football supporters which caused or contributed to the deaths.
Well that's just silly.
The unlawful killing I can go with - the police acted in a grossly negligent way, as well as other authorities' failings - but would the deaths have occurred had the fans observed proper queuing behaviour outside the ground? You can't absolve those who rushed through the gates of their share of blame.
Were you at the inquest?
No?
pipe down then.
It's near kick-off, it's the cup semi-final, someone opens a gate in front of you. What do you do? Casually stroll along, mindful of health and safety? Pause to do a risk assessment?
The police effectively told the fans that "proper queueing" was no longer required by the act of opening the gates. Fans therefore did nothing wrong. Most importantly I choose to believe the jury who have been presented exhaustively with the facts, unlike you.
Hillsborough disaster inquest rules 96 victims were unlawfully killed and no behaviour on the part of football supporters which caused or contributed to the deaths.
Well that's just silly.
The unlawful killing I can go with - the police acted in a grossly negligent way, as well as other authorities' failings - but would the deaths have occurred had the fans observed proper queuing behaviour outside the ground? You can't absolve those who rushed through the gates of their share of blame.
Football fans are excited crowds. That's why it's the responsibility of the authorities to manage how they get into the stadia, with proper queues and barriers outside the ground and staff and not telling fans to go into an already overcrowded area. The authorities failed. It is right they be held responsible.
I don't dispute that there were gross failings on the part of many authorities, the SYP above all. However, the notion that "no behaviour on the part of football supporters ...caused or contributed to the deaths" is something I simply can't agree with because had they stayed outside until let in through the turnstiles, it wouldn't have happened.
That struck me as a bizarre statement. It was obviously a contributing factor to some extent.
Yes - my father worked a game at Highbury before Hillsborough and said the same thing nearly happened there, and it was due to the liverpool fans actions, but that the crowd control was better. Apparently liverpool supporters at that time had a bad rep for turning up to all ticket games without tickets and charging the gates, and generally causing trouble.
Hillsborough disaster inquest rules 96 victims were unlawfully killed and no behaviour on the part of football supporters which caused or contributed to the deaths.
Well that's just silly.
The unlawful killing I can go with - the police acted in a grossly negligent way, as well as other authorities' failings - but would the deaths have occurred had the fans observed proper queuing behaviour outside the ground? You can't absolve those who rushed through the gates of their share of blame.
Football fans are excited crowds. That's why it's the responsibility of the authorities to manage how they get into the stadia, with proper queues and barriers outside the ground and staff and not telling fans to go into an already overcrowded area. The authorities failed. It is right they be held responsible.
I don't dispute that there were gross failings on the part of many authorities, the SYP above all. However, the notion that "no behaviour on the part of football supporters ...caused or contributed to the deaths" is something I simply can't agree with because had they stayed outside until let in through the turnstiles, it wouldn't have happened.
I can't really see it myself either.
TBH, I think it's a combination of which juror would say Yes, and the feeling that 96 unlawful deaths is more than enough pain endured by the families of the supporters. What would blaming the fans achieve now almost 3 decades on? Nothing. SYC have enough culpability for everyone.
Comments
Flies in, eats the food and cr*ps everywhere....
Although, I suppose it might speed up the development of an AI Opposition. It wouldn't be difficult for a computer programme to do better than the Labour party at the moment....
And I speak as someone who has two close members of my family serving in it.
37% turnout as definite among 18-24;
75% turnout as definite among 55-grim reaper;
A quarter of the "A" vote are under 25, while nearly 30% of these U/25s own their own houses or have mortgages. Of course they do.
2015 turnout was 85% among this sample, and as with almost all phone samples, there is suspiciously high over-sampling of claimed Labour voters.
Some regions have claimed 90%+ turnout. These are most common in Labour areas.
Basically, a lot of people lie over the phone and say they vote Labour.
Whilst phone polls were better for Tory/Lab last May, they were poorer on left/right than the internet .
It appears that people say Labour when they actually vote UKIP, This is the stigma of people regularly being dubbed racist for holding views about immigration.
It's reasonable to suspect that this follows through in almost all responses on specific issues, including EU leanings. The polite answer is given as opposed to the honest one.
We had the 200 page defining statement from Osborne and then the Cameron love-in with Obama. ...and the polling got worse for REMAIN.
"Laugh, I nearly sha*, I had not laughed so much since grandma died.."
http://tinyurl.com/jcstcdc
As far as I'm concerned the fences were there to satisfy the FA. Arsenal refused to have fences and that meant they sacrificed the possibility of hosting semi finals. Yes, the ground was dangerous, but only because the police completely botched the crowd management.
Ursa lignis assidet
I'm a Liverpool fan who lives in Sheffield (and at the time of the disaster), my Father was one of the docs who went to the hospitals to help on the day of the disaster, I didn't realise what had gone on until I started going to Anfield in the late 90s and speaking to the fans.
I accepted the official narrative up to that point, to my eternal regret.
This comes as no surprise.
Some of the biggest pro-EU cheerleaders on here have also let that cat out of the bag.
Which is why it's in the national interest for Leave to run this as close as possible.
But do the heirs to the throne get the vote - Charles, William etc?
Following today's verdicts, the CPS confirms it will now begin considering criminal charges over Hillsborough
Oh - and good morning from NY!
Net result?
I now don't take anything the British authorities say at face value, or anyone else for that matter.
The unlawful killing I can go with - the police acted in a grossly negligent way, as well as other authorities' failings - but would the deaths have occurred had the fans observed proper queuing behaviour outside the ground? You can't absolve those who rushed through the gates of their share of blame.
And Brexit will steal your Tax Credits or other nonsense.
In any case, by offering an In/Out referendum, the Tories *did* include a Brexit option in their manifesto. If I remember rightly, the Lib Dems even picked up some Leaver support in 2005 on that basis.
The number of people who are effectively bullied/shamed into taking cautions is a national scandal.
The conversation goes something like this
'Accept a caution, or you'll be charged, you might be placed on remand, it'll be in the papers, your family will be embarrassed, or you can accept a caution and walk out of here without a stain on your character'
Frightened person accepts caution, thinks nothing of it, few years later applies for a job that requires a CRB/DBS and turns out they do have a stain on their character.
He isn't on the payroll of the 1%, put in Washington to do what his paymasters want him to do - whether or not it's good for the people who elected him.
Trump's line against Hillary will be that she accepted $x million from Bank X before speaking/voting/advocating for their position. Ditto Media Company Y and Pharma Company Z. It's a hugely powerful argument from Trump, who's never received political donations in his life.
Football fans weren't angels then. Far from it.
Football fans are excited crowds. That's why it's the responsibility of the authorities to manage how they get into the stadia, with proper queues and barriers outside the ground and staff and not telling fans to go into an already overcrowded area. The authorities failed. It is right they be held responsible.
My wife is a lawyer, and almost always smokes this stuff out so we're alright, but I've never thought it's fair on those who can't afford legal advice or simply don't understand and are stressed/scared.
Would you want to be the juror who said 'yes?'
I wouldn't.
Although it is not technically classed as a conviction (as only the Courts can convict someone) it can be taken into consideration by the Courts if the person is convicted of a further offence.
Cautions will always remain on a person's record. There are only exceptional circumstances when a caution could be removed from a person's record and it is anticipated that such incidents will be rare. Examples of such possible circumstances are that it was found that the original arrest or sample was unlawful or where it was found beyond all doubt that no offence existed. - the police.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/news/vote2001/hi/english/voting_system/newsid_1171000/1171908.stm
But we can't stop such an assault, and Vote Leave have been heavily warned.
I just hope they are prepared for it.
And @Patrick wrt UKIP, I have long thought, and continue to believe that they are a single-issue pressure group. A very successful one but no more.
I don't know the answer, but it seems an important part of the story.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE
It would all depend on the extent to which the EUelite were prepared to accept and accommodate the reality of a growing scepticism.
The possibility of fans attempting to gain entry without tickets or with forged tickets was suggested as a contributing factor. South Yorkshire Police suggested the late arrival of fans amounted to a conspiracy to gain entry without tickets. However, analysis of the electronic monitoring system, Health and Safety Executive analysis, and eyewitness accounts showed that the total number of people who entered the Leppings Lane end was below the official capacity of the stand. Eye witness reports suggested that tickets were available on the day and tickets for the Leppings Lane end were on sale from Anfield until the day before. The report dismissed the conspiracy theory.
The evidence is deeply unpromising.
One of the rather few attractive things about Farage is he openly says that he has no desire to run the country, he wants to get the UK out of Europe, and if he sits there just running a pressure group, its wont happen. The only ways to make it happen is to get inside the system, which unfortunately involves having lots of policies on all sorts of things they are not terribly interested in. The problem with this of course is that this means you have to hire a party machine that does like, and is interested in this sort of stuff, and then you are in danger of becoming part of the problem and not the solution.
Anti-semites: 28534 (70.2%)
One thing I've never got was why there was this previous 3.15pm cut off point. Not least since the failure of the medical response was so obvious.
In every single debate Trump is going to wave around Hillary's donor list and compare it to his, in every single response he will tear her links to Wall Street to shreds and he will be absolutely ruthless in doing so.
Boris and that Spectator editorial on Liverpool and Hillsborough might be bad for him and leave.
I know he didn't write it, but was published on his watch.
I still wouldn't have anything to say without my lawyer present.
'http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/157363/labour-mp-naz-shah-backed-plan-relocate-israelis-america
This is rather inflammatory.'
I thought Labour was against ethnic cleansing ?
I wouldn't.
This is the only question of the 14 that I have concerns about. Are the jury really saying that there weren't fans without tickets trying to get in? Because surely they can't be saying that fans without tickets trying to get in didn't contribute to the disaster.
There is a huge disparity between the ORB polling for the Telegraph, claiming 1 in 5 still undecided and yet the tables show ORB regularly at 5% or less for DK/WV - Am I reading it wrong?
This idea that there will be an outer bloc of non-EMU nations is a complete fallacy, it just isn't going to happen, joining the EMU is now a requirement of joining the EU, a point the SNP spectacularly failed to address in the independence campaign.
Why would temporarily non-EMU nations cosy up to the UK and possibly Swe/Den when they are going to be in the other club at some point anyway?
As for accepting growing scepticism, well I think we're back to wishful thinking again, there is no evidence that the EU has taken even the slightest notice of growing scepticism. The EUParl has the highest proportion of sceptics and outers ever and how did the EU react? They made an arch-federalist the EC president and his leftist mirror image the EUParl president.
First, thanks to Morris_Dancer for stating my case
Secondly, thanks to rcs1000 for getting me able to post again.
Trouble is all is OK for a few days or weeks, and then for no reason at all I can't post in PB.
Very queer, that.
Never mind, Saturday is my birthday and I will be 82, but still out there scrambling away.
http://tinyurl.com/zbwyp33
The supporters were at the same ends and, while there were some reports of crushing, that was far from unusual for the times (not saying that it was right, of course).
As I understand it, the big difference was that the police did not operate a ring of police away from the stadium in 1989. So supporters were able to walk up to the ground without showing a ticket. This led to a crush outside the ground which ultimately led to the gate being opened.
The question is not whether there was space in the stand, it's how quickly fans entered the ground. A regular trickle, as regulated by turnstiles, allows fans to find a place on the terrace; a rapid flood - caused, for example, by many fans coming through an open gate - gives them little time or space to fan out and forced them on into the central pen.
Opening the exit was always going to lead to a crush inside where the fans already there had nowhere to go.
I've brought this up before, and it needs to be repeated to anyone who'll listen.
There have also been other opportunities for even a mildly eurosceptic government to get a better relationship with Europe in the past few years, and they've been ignored.
After BHS, Austin Reed appoints AlixPartners as administrators, putting 1,100 jobs at risk - but buyers are already circling
http://www.cityam.com/239704/austin-reed-poised-to-appoint-administrator?utm_medium=Email&utm_source=Email&utm_campaign=160426_CMU
The whole edifice seems to be crumbling. First it's Steel, now it's Knickers and Y Fronts!
That we can stay in and somehow 'reform' things in the direction 'we want',
or that the other member states will 'come to their senses' and reshape the EU as 'we want',
or that 'it will collapse anyway soon'
or worst of all 'if we leave it will all collapse and everything will be dreadful so we must stay in to stop that'.
All these are just excuses for not acting. Sometimes they are sincerely meant, if misguided, sometimes they are the refuges of those who are frightened, other times they are just dissembling.
We have one chance to really alter our relationship with the EU states in the way 'we want', and it comes from voting LEAVE in June. All else is, frankly, fluff.
Did the report from that event and critisicm of the club/security/policing from the FA lead them to be more unwilling to open the gates the next time the same situation occurred.?
My view is that David Cameron has the establishment view on the EU.
No?
pipe down then.
It's near kick-off, it's the cup semi-final, someone opens a gate in front of you. What do you do? Casually stroll along, mindful of health and safety? Pause to do a risk assessment?
The police effectively told the fans that "proper queueing" was no longer required by the act of opening the gates. Fans therefore did nothing wrong. Most importantly I choose to believe the jury who have been presented exhaustively with the facts, unlike you.
It was 9-0 on this question.