Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

gingerjon

Hillsborough (merged threads)

116 posts in this topic

Honestly, that wasn't such a bad word to be swearified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe not but this is: **** , no more no less. :angry:  :angry:  :angry:  :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit too much opinion and faux outrage from the newspaper in that article, much like many of the articles on this story.  Just tell the truth, it's shocking and damning enough without having to jazz it up a bit to make a story.  It also devalues the entire Hillsborough tragedy and crime by making it into an endless media pit where journalists can just poke the victims families with carefully worded headlines and get soundbite reactions, if they don't get the right reaction they go on to the next victim until they get one that suits.

 

The truth of the story is near the bottom:

The Deputy Chief Constable of South Yorkshire, Andy Holt, said yesterday: “In 1991 a number of organisations which had been involved in the tragedy, including South Yorkshire Police, were contacted by the trustees and invited to submit suggestions about how they could use some of the residual money better to equip them.

“As a result, South Yorkshire Police formally submitted a number of suggestions.” He added: “I am not aware that any of the various suggestions succeeded in attracting funding. ”

 

If the police had declined to accept any offer of aid for the police officers, some of whom genuinely have PTSD as a result of Hillsborough, then I can easily imagined a story headline today of "Callous police chiefs rejected Hillsborough Fund's generous offer of aid to policemen affected by Hillsborough tragedy".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit too much opinion and faux outrage from the newspaper in that article, much like many of the articles on this story.  Just tell the truth, it's shocking and damning enough without having to jazz it up a bit to make a story.  It also devalues the entire Hillsborough tragedy and crime by making it into an endless media pit where journalists can just poke the victims families with carefully worded headlines and get soundbite reactions, if they don't get the right reaction they go on to the next victim until they get one that suits.

 

The truth of the story is near the bottom:

 

If the police had declined to accept any offer of aid for the police officers, some of whom genuinely have PTSD as a result of Hillsborough, then I can easily imagined a story headline today of "Callous police chiefs rejected Hillsborough Fund's generous offer of aid to policemen affected by Hillsborough tragedy".

 

I can cope with the police being in a no-win situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe not but this is: **** , no more no less. :angry:  :angry:  :angry:  :angry:

 

Edited by ckn, Today, 10:35 AM. 

Another word to add to the sweary word filter.......Pleased to be of assistance!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the comment that it was in accordance with the policy in force at the time.

 

As though such a policy should ever have been in force at any time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bit of a non-story really. They have so much more to answer for.

 

Maybe in itself pretty trivial, but had this, along with some of the other things that have subsequently come out about SYP, been known at the time altered the course of events? I think so. For example it would have gone a long way to undermine the propaganda about the Liverpool fans robbing the dead etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bit of a non-story really.

In terms on monetary value, yes.  In terms of principle, no, especially given this headline after the tragedy.

 

Hillsborough+The+Sun.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms on monetary value, yes.  In terms of principle, no, especially given this headline after the tragedy.

 

Hillsborough+The+Sun.png

 

The newspaper article contains outright lies, whereas the £14.53 was handled according to police policy. I appreciate in context the policy seems shocking, especially given the lies that were spread by this police force, but I am sure this policy would have been followed on many occasions previously without comment and probably with much larger sums of money involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Urinated on the brave cops ?

 

How brave do you have to be to help someone out of an overcrowded pen ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Urinated on the brave cops ?

 

How brave do you have to be to help someone out of an overcrowded pen ?

I'm ashamed to say I'd never noticed that. I never got past the first outrageous lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Margaret Thatcher's former press secretary 'Sir' Bernard Ingham responds in 1996 to a Liverpool fan unhappy at comments he made about the Hillsborough disaster.

 

CLICK TO VIEW

 

What a charmer...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - April 2017

League Express - Mon 10th April 2017