Hillsborough Independent Panel findings and release of documents.

[Ash Mahay]

I remember a few of the more overpaid prima donnas getting a fit of the vapours that they might get a smack for their more scurrilous bollocks, but I don't recall any general worry that any NUJ member was a target (except perhaps by Redwatch).

Perhaps if you want to move this forward, as an ex-NUJ member, you might be able to answer the very simple question asked?

Were football reporters, on the whole, ex-public school boys on a class war against supporters?

Not some, not a few, not editors, not editorial direction, but the vast majority of reporters, almost to a man, from the broad sheets, the tabloids, dailies, weeklies, & every local paper & magazine out there?

& do you have proof of this if it was the truth?

It would be nice to actually have an answer, positive, or negative, wouldnt it?

 

[butchersapron]

I think unless billy is going to post up his mythical profile, what it says and what evidence it presents to undermine my case about how the police were able to exploit the gap between news and football reporters and supporters and the social prejudices this was based on, and how in the following years this may have lead to a lack of focus or interest in what happened, in what the families were saying about their experiences and what questions they were asking then there's little relevance to this thread, or in continuing indulging his idiocy - not on this particular thread anyway.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Am I defending what he's said? Let's just say that I'd like to know the answer to his question too, to see if it marries up with what I remember.
Am I defending someone of known integrity? Fucking right I am.

Lets get somethings straight.

Firstly I asked for proof, not because I doubted him, but because what he said directly contradicted what Id heard before on the parts I highlighted.

Its what I do. Its what most people do. If someone tells them something & then someone else comes along & tells them something different you ask them for proof, dont you?

What have I had in response to that?

Not evidence, thats for sure.

Ive had a guy avoid backing up his statement, trying to fudge the issue, a few insults, a made up name & other bs.

Everything in fact apart from any evidence & lets face it, on this thread more than any other, because of its subject matter, youd expect a man to be desperate to back things up, wouldnt you?

I didnt call him a liar, but I have said his behaviour is consistent with a liar, because we both know it is.

Sure, hes your buddy, you want to take his side, but we both know his actions are not consistent with that of an honest man.

Does that make him a liar? No, but it does ask questions that any reasonable man would want answers to.

Your running inteference, under such circumstances is a defence, in the same way that a lie of omisson is still a lie, despite nothing being said.

Now I dont care about your views concerning his past integrity, all I asked was a simple question, can he provide evidence of what he said.

Can he?

Its a simple question that hes avoided a straight answer too over a period of several days and many posts.

How about you push for the truth, instead of for your friends?

Or are you still having day dreams about cannon fodder?

1) He's not my "buddy" or my "friend".

2) Nice bit of crossthread posting there. Pity I actually pointed out to you on a post on that thread where I mentioned "cannon fodder", that you were misrepresenting what I said.

3) The "name" he's calling you, Billy? Use your imagination. I'm sure a man whose been to as many places and done as much as you have can work it out. Keith Waterhouse did.

 

[Ash Mahay]

Repeat it often enough and...

I have provided you with a series of 'evidences' (all of which you repeatedly ignore) based on the findings of the panel, personal experience, incidents that took place at the time and developments that would indicate the existence of the gap i suggested existed. You have provided nothing, ignored requests to back up your claim of this profile of news and football reporters you were given and what it said - call me cynical but i'm starting to suspect that you sort of you know...made it up.

You can say again and again that i haven't, and that i must therefore admit that i 'made it up' - but i tell you here and now billy, you ain't fooling anyone by trying that trick.

I hope no ones stupid enough to buy that.

Your repeated evidences?

Where in the panel report does it state your opinions on this as a class war?

Apart from that deception you gave me a few names out of hundreds of people?

Anything else?

Come on VP! Is this your "integrity"?

I bet you £50 you wouldnt take a shit answer like this from me!

 

[butchersapron]

Where in the panel report does it state your opinions on this as a class war?

This is it is it?

The panel's report (and the lengthy previous work by Scraton that i've quoted and linked to on this thread) outlined in meticulous detail (as does the dossier of documents, two in particular linked to on this very thread) how the police used the naivety of some reporters and their reliance on the police as sources of info to further their twisted narrative of what happened. This is in no doubt to anyone but you - and it was in very little doubt how news or crime reporters operate before the panel reported - what with it being a staple method of news/crime reporting for as long as both have existed.

You're going to have to do better than this. You can start by doing the three things i listed before and then relating them to Hillsborough:

1) Respond to the evidence i presented - critique it, take it apart, whatever but respond.
2) Post your outline of the profile you were given of news and football reporters in 84/5 and precis the evidence it offereed for its case.
3) Find me lying about Hillsborough

 

[ViolentPanda]

Perhaps if you want to move this forward, as an ex-NUJ member, you might be able to answer the very simple question asked?

Were football reporters, on the whole, ex-public school boys on a class war against supporters?

Not some, not a few, not editors, not editorial direction, but the vast majority of reporters, almost to a man, from the broad sheets, the tabloids, dailies, weeklies, & every local paper & magazine out there?

& do you have proof of this if it was the truth?

It would be nice to actually have an answer, positive, or negative, wouldnt it?

I can only speak for what I saw in London, Norwich and Brum, but I'd say that a majority of sports reporters for the nationals at the time had an animus against soccer fans, as did many crews up/down from London to film (as opposed to local cameramen and soundmen). I'm measuring this against how I saw the media in West Germany treat soccer fans in the same period - much more give and take between clubs and the press, and consequently much more acceptance by the media of what soccer fans were about, and acceptance by the fans that the media weren't there to get at them. I rarely saw that happen at any match I attended in the UK in the '80s.

Was it "class war"? No, it wasn't that open, it was more often knife-in-the-back stuff by them, on us, because it was easy to get yourself a piece in the front of the paper, maybe even front page, if you could write something denunciatory about fan behaviour, even if that meant exaggerating the fuck out of what had actually happened.

Were the sports journos mostly middle-class (as in public school)? A lot of them, rounded out with a small percentage of grammar boys. Ironically, the class divide in general in journalism is even worse nowadays than it used to be, given that a journalism place on a paper almost always requires a degree now.

And don't ask for yes/no answers when the matter isn't conducive to them, there's a good chap.

 

[Ash Mahay]

The sort of post Id expect from you VP. Short on relevance & lots of drivel.

1) He's not my "buddy" or my "friend".

Ive told you before, forget your semantic arguments, pick your own labels if it makes you happy, but you knew (& ignored) what I meant.

2) Nice bit of crossthread posting there. Pity I actually pointed out to you on a post on that thread where I mentioned "cannon fodder", that you were misrepresenting what I said.

With penetrating insight like that, you'd make good...well, cannon fodder, that's about all.

Dress it up anyway you want. You tried to come on all big.

3) The "name" he's calling you, Billy? Use your imagination. I'm sure a man whose been to as many places and done as much as you have can work it out. Keith Waterhouse did.

& does that change what I said (or address anything relevant to the issue)?

Anything to say about the actual issues or will it be just more backtracking on your tough guy act?

 

[scifisam]

This is really bizarre. Ash refuses to provide his 'evidence' that apparently somehow disagrees with the contention that most journalists in the eighties were middle-class, and then complains about other people's lack of evidence for something that's blindingly obvious.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Repeat it often enough and...




I hope no ones stupid enough to buy that.

Your repeated evidences?

Where in the panel report does it state your opinions on this as a class war?

Apart from that deception you gave me a few names out of hundreds of people?

Anything else?

Come on VP! Is this your "integrity"?

I bet you £50 you wouldnt take a shit answer like this from me!

Ash, I don't take any answer at face value, not from you, or from anyone else.

As for the "points" you're trying to make; does a class war have to be publicly-declared in order to exist? Would you, given your own opinions, accept even a hundred names, if such an answer took you outside of your cognitive safety zone?
And if you're wondering what I mean about your opinions, I mean your manifestation of a type of argument from authority, i.e. you were at Hillsborough, therefore you know better, whatever the related subject, than someone who wasn't there.

 

[butchersapron]

Given that ash is unable to provide any evidence, given that he's been rumbled and given that he cannot relate all this bollockery to Hillsborough - to the panels report or to where things go now or why they happened as they did, i really don't think there's much point in allowing him to drag this important thread down this route.

If anyone else wants to talk about the post i made that ash doubted (and then lied about point blank saying that he didn't doubt it) and how it relates to Hillsborough and after we can (if you doubt it or if it backs up your own experience at the time or of other things, or whatever) then i'm happy to. Just don't think it's worth all this effort with billy.

 

[Ash Mahay]

This is it is it?

The panel's report (and the lengthy previous work by Scraton that i've quoted and linked to on this thread) outlined in meticulous detail (as does the dossier of documents, two in particular linked to on this very thread) how the police used the naivety of some reporters and their reliance on the police as sources of info to further their twisted narrative of what happened.

Which has zero to do with the point under discussion & therefore doesnt back it up.

This is in no doubt to anyone but you - and it was in very little doubt how news or crime reporters operate before the panel reported - what with it being a staple method of news/crime reporting for as long as both have existed.

See above.

Come on VP, are you telling me this isnt evasive fudging?

I can only speak for what I saw in London, Norwich and Brum, but I'd say that a majority of sports reporters for the nationals at the time had an animus against soccer fans, as did many crews up/down from London to film (as opposed to local cameramen and soundmen). I'm measuring this against how I saw the media in West Germany treat soccer fans in the same period - much more give and take between clubs and the press, and consequently much more acceptance by the media of what soccer fans were about, and acceptance by the fans that the media weren't there to get at them. I rarely saw that happen at any match I attended in the UK in the '80s.

Was it "class war"? No it wasn't that open, it was more often knife-in-the-back stuff by them, on us, because it was easy to get yourself a piece in the front of the paper, maybe even front page, if you could write something denunciatory about fan behaviour, even if that meant exaggerating the fuck out of what had actually happened.

Were the sports journos mostly middle-class (as in public school)? A lot of them, rounded out with a small percentage of grammar boys. Ironically, the class divide in general in journalism is even worse nowadays than it used to be, given that a journalism place on a paper almost always requires a degree now.

And don't ask for yes/no answers when the matter isn't conducive to them, there's a good chap.

So not exactly backing up your buddies views. Admittedly its only your personal experiances, so not conclusive, but its a small step forward isnt it?

Maybe you want to rethink your stance old chap?

 

[ViolentPanda]

The sort of post Id expect from you VP. Short on relevance & lots of drivel.



Ive told you before, forget your semantic arguments, pick your own labels if it makes you happy, but you knew (& ignored) what I meant.

Ah, I forgot, I make "semantic arguments". Except that they're only "semantic arguments" to you.

Dress it up anyway you want. You tried to come on all big.

Projection. I didn't do anything of the sort, as anyone reading the post I linked to will be able to discern.

& does that change what I said (or address anything relevant to the issue)?

It calls your probity into account.

Anything to say about the actual issues or will it be just more backtracking on your tough guy act?

What "tough guy" act? Come on, you're so keen on evidence, provide some for this claim, and not selectively edited, the whole quote, if you don't mind![/quote][/quote]

 

[butchersapron]

Which has zero to do with the point under discussion & therefore doesnt back it up.

It has everything to do with the point under discussion. In fact it was the very first point (of two) that i made:

Firstly, a lot of the reporting was by news reporters who were a) not part of football culture and didn't understand the way fans were treated, the way we were herded like cattle etc and b) used to talking to the police and using them as their primary source - questioning and criticising them is the fast path to getting yourself cut off from those sources.

Floundering and trying to take the thread down with you.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Your first lines. Let's look shall we?



Your response:



Come on.

You're just making semantic arguments, with your tough guy act.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Which has zero to do with the point under discussion & therefore doesnt back it up.



See above.

Come on VP, are you telling me this isnt evasive fudging?

Compared to what you're pulling? Not at all.

So not exactly backing up your buddies views. Admittedly its only your personal experiances, so not conclusive, but its a small step forward isnt it?

Open class war would have left sports desks unable to function in reporting a sport that was the lifeblood of many dailies and sundays, which is why I said "it wasn't that open". That doesn't mean it wasn't there and in-your-face in the newsroom if you happened to not be of the same class or sporting preferences as most of the journos you worked amid.

Maybe you want to rethink your stance old chap?

Why would I want to do that?

 

[Ash Mahay]

Ash, I don't take any answer at face value, not from you, or from anyone else.

I think, based on your history, you are very selective & a lot more likely to base your views & actions on personality than you possibly know & would be willing to admit.

My observation is your posts show a lot of inconsistancy, in that regard.

And if you're wondering what I mean about your opinions, I mean your manifestation of a type of argument from authority, i.e. you were at Hillsborough, therefore you know better, whatever the related subject, than someone who wasn't there.

Which I have not done & wouldnt do, not least because, being on the ground, while giving you first hand experiance of some elements also leaves you with an over crowded view of other elements.

I will confess it does make a man more emotional on the subject though, especially when faced with bs & games playing & I repeat both of us have seen that in this thread.

 

[Ash Mahay]

You're just making semantic arguments, with your tough guy act.

I wasnt the guy who pulled the cannon fodder line lol

 

[Ash Mahay]

Compared to what you're pulling? Not at all.

Maybe Ive given you to much credit?

Open class war would have left sports desks unable to function in reporting a sport that was the lifeblood of many dailies and sundays, which is why I said "it wasn't that open". That doesn't mean it wasn't there and in-your-face in the newsroom if you happened to not be of the same class or sporting preferences as most of the journos you worked amid.

No, but your answer did say (admittedly only on personal experiance) that it isnt true that virtually every reporter was a public school bully with an agenda (& in fact its worse now) which was the original claim made.

Why would I want to do that?

Because youve just basically stated the original claim was at least an exageration, despite arguing for the person who made that claim & while arguing against someone who merely asked for proof one way or the other?

 

[ViolentPanda]

I think, based on your history, you are very selective & a lot more likely to base your views & actions on personality than you possibly know & would be willing to admit.

My observation is your posts show a lot of inconsistancy, in that regard.

Mmmm, you're a discursive psychologist with psychoanalytic pretensions now. Good for you!

 

[ViolentPanda]

I wasnt the guy who pulled the cannon fodder line lol

No, you're just the person who deliberately took it out of context.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Maybe Ive given you to much credit?

Ah, here we go, the denigration again, the not-so-subtle putting-down.

No, but your answer did say (admittedly only on personal experiance) that it isnt true that virtually every reporter was a public school bully with an agenda (& in fact its worse now) which was the original claim made.

No, it didn't. There's nothing about "virtually all" in the original claim. You're mixing up what you want to see on the screen (because without it, your "argument" disintegrates) with what's actually there.

Because youve just basically stated the original claim was at least an exageration, despite arguing for the person who made that claim & while arguing against someone who merely asked for proof one way or the other?

And here you are, constructing another edifice.

 

[goldenecitrone]

I'm still trying to digest this. Just how rotten these people are. Even when you feel it in your gut, you still don't really want to believe it. And still we live amongst them.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'm still trying to digest this. Just how rotten these people are. Even when you feel it in your gut, you still don't really want to believe it. And still we live amongst them.

Our history is rife with examples of power protecting itself at the expense of ordinary people. Why assume Hillsborough would be any different? Look at the Marchioness disaster (Thames riverboat sinking). Coordination between the emergency services was poor, so the next day you heard about how pissed most of the people on the boat were, not about how "the man" fucked up. The Bradford fire was another one where there were attempts to lay blame on the fans rather than on the club and the not-so-brilliant emergency response. Even the Establishment consensus on Peterloo was "they brought it on themselves" when all other accounts concurred on the militia having gone off on one. Even the Establishment response to the de Menezes, Tomlinson and Duggan murders all sing from the same hymn-sheet.
And you know what? It's not going to change until that "Establishment" isn't there any more to guide how events like this are represented to the public-at-large.

 

[butchersapron]

Straw back in the shit:

Jack Straw was embroiled in a fresh row over the Hillsborough disaster yesterday after new documents revealed he had made up his mind within five weeks of coming to power that there was no need for a fresh inquiry into the tragedy.

A "restricted" memo to Tony Blair in June 1997 outlined Mr Straw's fears that the public would refuse to accept that verdict from the Government – and said that it had to come from an independent source instead.

Mr Straw wrote to the then Attorney-General, John Morris: "I am certain that continuing public concern will not be allayed with a reassurance from the Home Office that there is no new evidence. I therefore propose that there should be an independent examination of the alleged new evidence by a senior legal figure." At the end of June 1997, he met Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, appointed to lead the review. He told him that his officials had already looked at the case and concluded that "there was not sufficient evidence to justify a new inquiry".

Effectively setting up a ringer inquiry and that he then effectively lied to the house about what he was up to, lied directly to the victims families - and delayed the truth coming out for a further 15 years. The rat. And his justification today is that the judge he appointed did exactly what Straw told him to, found what he was implicitly steered towards finding. The double rat.

 

[Corax]

Effectively setting up a ringer inquiry and that he then effectively lied to the house about what he was up to, lied directly to the victims families - and delayed the truth coming out for a further 15 years. The rat. And his justification today is that the judge he appointed did exactly what Straw told him to, found what he was implicitly steered towards finding. The double rat.

Any thoughts on what the motivation was? The 'new' facts recently released have landed the police in the shit, but not so much the government. Was Straw simply protecting his attack dogs?

 

[where to]

as the Sun once asked, "what is the point of Jack Straw?". looking back on his time in office, can anyone think of anything positive he achieved for the left, (or even the centre)?

 

[butchersapron]

Any thoughts on what the motivation was? The 'new' facts recently released have landed the police in the shit, but not so much the government. Was Straw simply protecting his attack dogs?

I don't think there was any particular specific motivation beyond being Home Sec and a politician and so pissing in the same pot as the police chiefs.

Sheila Coleman has an important piece building on the gaps and failings in the panels report here as does my mate DB here.

 

[nino_savatte]

as the Sun once asked, "what is the point of Jack Straw?". looking back on his time in office, can anyone think of anything positive he achieved for the left, (or even the centre)?

One thing: he went after Pinochet. That is all.

 

[butchersapron]

He didn't! He let him go. It was him who made the decision that he be released on health grounds. He had the case dropped into his lap by Garzon's actions and he was lukewarm and against his extradition from the start.

 

[nino_savatte]

He didn't! He let him go. It was him who made the decision that he be released on health grounds. He had the case dropped into his lap by Garzon's actions and he was lukewarm and against his extradition from the start.

Only because he was pressured to do so (most of the pressure was being applied by Thatcher's cronies). I'm not defending or apologising for Straw but there was an interesting doco about this a few years ago and Straw actually came out of it looking surprisingly good.