An important appeal for Saturday

[Shack Attack 0]

You are moving the goalposts quite considerably Nutty. What does ''respecting the national anthem'' have to do with anything? People who get offended by not respecting the national anthem are frankly not worth the bother and shouldn''t be able to use it as an excuse for chants which glory in the death of fellow football fans. Bringing individual acts of hooliganism such as attempting to overturn an ambulance into the argument is missing the point spectacularly. Weren''t Norwich fans arrested for violence at Leicester a couple of years back? Does the fact that there was no attempted ambulence overturning make this OK?There are no ''worst offenders''. We are all desparately defending our own clubs in an ever rising pool of $hit. At regular intervals this season fans/players/owners of various clubs will find themselves in touble for chants/comments on Twitter/behaviour on the pitch. The fans/players/owners of every other club will condemn those comments and then turn a blind eye when their own players do the same. It maybe a very small sample size but this place proves it on an almost daily basis.

[crab 0]

Shack, the trouble is, everybody (especially the scousers) is so precious and easily offended nowadays. Unless singing and chanting is banned altogether, this will never stop, because somebody somewhere is going to have a lower threshhold at which they ''take offence''.

Scousers are victims, Man Utd fans gloryhunters, Ipswich are scum, and we are apparently all inbred. Football fans, for years have taken part in a very basic level of social commentary. Mocking disasters is out of order, but the pathetic whimpering from Liverpool fans over sunday''s events just enhancesthe argument that they''re perpetual victims.

Yes it can be childish, yes we could all ''grow up'', but the game will be a lot less interesting. And if you''re arguing that its the media/authorities which have created the whole victim image, well its the same media and authorities which are now whitewashing Hillsborough the other way around.

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="City1st"]

"The thing with the whold ''Scouse victim'' chant is that it is this exact wider public perception that allowed police/media/politicians to paint Liverpool fans as guilty at Hillsborough. You only have to look at the responses to threads discussing the subject on here, a relatively small group of Norwich fans, to see how they got away with it for so long."

 

That is very misleading to put it mildly. I don''t recall any supposed victim status before Hillsborough, though I do know that within football many were aware of what happened at Heysel and also would have been aware of Liverpool fans turning up to games elsewhere en masse just before kick off, and trying to get in without paying. Outside of football I suspect there was no particular indentification of one club other that what was screened on TV  - ''we'' were all the same.

 

Yes there were dreadful mistakes made during and after the deaths. And yes it is clear that those who did have tickets and were in the ground waiting for the game, were those that who were killed (not that anyone deserved to be killed, irrespective of their behaviour on that day). But I suspect the pendulem has now swung very far the other way - if only so that a bit of contrition and mass grief can be a means of lancing this particular boil

 

Because of the deaths this will always be a very emotive subject, however it doesn''t need more emotion added to it by misrepresenting what happened around the event at the time.

 

 

[/quote]I probably should have added ''for so long'' at the end of my first sentence. Surely you have to look at the enormity of the police cover up (how many statements were altered?) and wonder whether this would have been possible without the media pushing the idea that the Liverpool fans were to blame. Then you have to wonder whether the idea of the ''Scouse victim'' peddled by certain elements of the media didn''t allow the search for the truth to be pushed to the back of many football fans minds for so long. Then wonder whether the chants mentioned by the OP affect the conciousness of those who might otherwise be compelled to attempt to discover the truth?A lot of what you and Nutty have posted is undoubtedly true but to me it seems clear that the painting of Liverpool fans, and the city in general, as victims has made the truth harder to uncover.

[Beauseant 0]

For newcomers,this is what this forum used to be about. People stating their cases and often taking wildy different stances but treating each other with a bit of respect rather than hurling abuse. If only it were like this more often.

I think the fundamental problem is that most of us are different people at football matches (or at least those involving our team). However respectable and well educated we may be in every day life, there is something tribal about football that calls to the beast inside. While there are some chants I refuse to join in with I''m well aware that my behaviour at a game is something I sometimes look back on with embarrassment. Add to that the group mentality that a crowd can engender and you can see how easily things can get nasty.

There''s a lot of moralistic one upmanshipgoing on with regard to this issue at the moment but I don''t think I''ve ever seen/heard a faultless football crowd, including ours, although I do understand (and share) the antipathy towards Liverpool. The reason for this is their blatantness of their hand wringing over Hillsborough while being happy to sing "Who''s that lying on the runway" and generally ignoring Heysel (apart from when they had to play Juve). Having said that United''s fans aren''t much better, and I genuinely wonder if we would be given the same historical background.

[nutty nigel 7,528]

[quote user="Shack Attack"]You are moving the goalposts quite considerably Nutty. What does ''respecting the national anthem'' have to do with anything? People who get offended by not respecting the national anthem are frankly not worth the bother and shouldn''t be able to use it as an excuse for chants which glory in the death of fellow football fans. Bringing individual acts of hooliganism such as attempting to overturn an ambulance into the argument is missing the point spectacularly. Weren''t Norwich fans arrested for violence at Leicester a couple of years back? Does the fact that there was no attempted ambulence overturning make this OK?

There are no ''worst offenders''. We are all desparately defending our own clubs in an ever rising pool of $hit. At regular intervals this season fans/players/owners of various clubs will find themselves in touble for chants/comments on Twitter/behaviour on the pitch. The fans/players/owners of every other club will condemn those comments and then turn a blind eye when their own players do the same. It maybe a very small sample size but this place proves it on an almost daily basis.
[/quote]

 

I don''t think I''m moving the goalposts at all Shack. What I was doing was pointing out that they always go further than other fans which is why they got their reputation and why the victim chant is not just about Hillsborough. I don''t believe anybody would glory in the death of another football fan. And certainly not anyone I know from my widish circle of football supporting friends. I don''t condone any acts of violence but my point about the ambulance is just another on the list of how their fans take it further. I also have no issue with people not respecting the national anthem but if you excuse them then you have to excuse everyone. Why should there be special rules for one group of fans?

 

As to your point on the other thread buddy, the truth was hard to find because of a cover-up from the top downwards. It has nothing to do with the opinions of other fans. But I do believe we are partly to blame because we allowed the fences to go up. We allowed the society of those days to view all football fans as hooligans. My view on this is no secret and infuriates many on here. But as far as i''m concerned we allowed the authorities of the time to view us all as hooligans. I put a lot of the blame fairly and squarely at Thatcher''s door but we let it happen. I hope future generations never allow a minority to bring down a majority of law abiding citizens in the way we did then.

 

 

[Bill 1,788]

"Then you have to wonder whether the idea of the ''Scouse victim'' peddled by certain elements of the media didn''t allow the search for the truth to be pushed to the back of many football fans minds for so long."

 

Again that is distorting th reality exceedingly far. The ''scouse victim'' approach is a very recent phenomena, based on more recent events. The ''authorities'' ability to put the blame on football fans was in large due to the publics perception of all football fans in general at that time. And a perception of what they were then, seen from the passing of years.

 

For whatever reason you have completely twisted the ''victims'' stuff. It is not "the painting of Liverpool fans, and the city in general, as victims " - but many others seeing THEIR perception of themselves as being victims with NEVER a sense that they may be in some way partly to blame ie ''it''s not us''.

 

Likewise the chants are a very, very recent phenomena and have played NO part in "the conciousness of those who might otherwise be compelled to attempt to discover the truth? Or are you really suggesting that any offcial enquiry has been guided by chants at football matches ?

 

Unfortunately Shack I have to say your comments do a great disservice to not only those who died but to any attempts to alson understand what happened on that day.

 

 

[shefcanary 2,393]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19711530

 

They really don''t help themselves though do they!

[Phillip J Fry 0]

I thought the ''always the victim'' chant had more to do with Heysel and Liverpool''s general attitude than Hillsborough? 

[Gardeningleave 0]

[quote user="shefcanary"]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19711530

 

They really don''t help themselves though do they!

[/quote]

Mind games, bound to get a penalty Saturday.

H

[Stig 0]

[quote user="Gareth"]I thought the ''always the victim'' chant had more to do with Heysel and Liverpool''s general attitude than Hillsborough? [/quote]

It is, Liverpool are victims in everything they do. They never lose a game of football, they are always cheated out of a win.

Their players never dive, they are tackled atrociously.

etc etc.

The chant ''always the victim'' can just be used and is fitting in the case of Hillsborough.

[pete_norw 0]

[quote user="Gareth"]I thought the ''always the victim'' chant had more to do with Heysel and Liverpool''s general attitude than Hillsborough? [/quote]

my thoughts too, Who was it that got English clubs banned from Europe for 5 years ?

[shefcanary 2,393]

Some have a sense of humour though

 

[Mick Dennis 0]

I urge City fans to read the inquiry report, because some of the 23 year old myths that it quashed are repeated in this thread.

But for the luck of the draw, Norwich would have been at Hillsborough that day, instead of at the other semi final.

It really could have been us, our friends and relatives, who died, then were the subject of terrible lies and a cover up which went on for nearly a quarter of a century.

Whatever other events "Always the victims" might refer to, to sing it two weeks after the inquiry report will be seen as a reference to the death of 96 ordinary football fans.

And we can''t justify that by pointing to things that happened before or since that day in 1989.

Let''s just sing in support of our team.

[? 20]

Well said Mick.

 

I sang the song last season, and stand by the spirit of it even now. However Saturday is not, in any way, shape or form, the appropriate time to sing it.

 

So pipe down, sing something else, and yell it out next season instead.

[Syteanric 1]

Nothing to do with Hillsboro but Liverpool FC supported a dirty little racist, Their manager at the time supported him, their players supported him (Possibly forced.. look at Glenn Johnson''s face in some of the videos)and most importantly of all their moronic supporters supported him, somehow thinking it gave them free reign to abuse other black footballers.. including one of our own....Liverpool FC can go and blow themselves and so can their fans.

[im spartacus canary 0]

I sometimes have use of a season ticket but i turned it down for saturday, i can''t stand salt of the earth scousers and would rather not be in the vicinity... i couldn''t trust myself not to join in any anti scouse songs (not hillsborough) and as it probably carries a life ban from all football grounds and a suspended prison sentence i''d better stay away OTBC

[Bill 1,788]

"I urge City fans to read the inquiry report, because some of the 23 year old myths that it quashed are repeated in this thread"

 

Perhaps you might care to expand further on those ''myths'' that have been repeated on here. Or maybe provide examples of where City fans have turned up late, en masse to games without tickets

 

"It really could have been us". See above

 

"And we can''t justify that by pointing to things that happened before or since that day in 1989."

 

Whilst the proximity of the release of that report would make any singing of those words now in very bad taste, the event cannot be islolated from previous and later events, nor cannot it act as the sole arbiter of what is good taste. 

 

My concern, beyond the gross lack of respect behind any such chants, is that those sort of chants merely cause the discussion to become further polarised and nothing is really learnt, understood or progressed from that divide.

 

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,528]

[quote user="Mick Dennis"]I urge City fans to read the inquiry report, because some of the 23 year old myths that it quashed are repeated in this thread. But for the luck of the draw, Norwich would have been at Hillsborough that day, instead of at the other semi final. It really could have been us, our friends and relatives, who died, then were the subject of terrible lies and a cover up which went on for nearly a quarter of a century. Whatever other events "Always the victims" might refer to, to sing it two weeks after the inquiry report will be seen as a reference to the death of 96 ordinary football fans. And we can''t justify that by pointing to things that happened before or since that day in 1989. Let''s just sing in support of our team.[/quote]

 

Well I just checked again to be sure and there''s not a single poster on this thread that has suggested we should sing it. So we shouldn''t talk it up. The other points being made are valid. It''s a fact that they are still and always have been amongst the worst offenders of the unsavoury side of tribal support. Even down to that ridiculous Hoveton Heffalump that invaded the pitch last season. I suppose if that had caused a ruck on the pitch in front of the Barclay that wouldn''t have been his fault. Poor lamb probably had a deprived childhood eating burgers.

 

 

 

 

[Bill 1,788]

"I suppose if that had caused a ruck on the pitch in front of the Barclay that wouldn''t have been his fault"

 

The point would be, was he at fault for going onto the pitch and doing what he did or were the stewards to blame for not stopping him ?

 

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="City1st"]

"I suppose if that had caused a ruck on the pitch in front of the Barclay that wouldn''t have been his fault"

 

The point would be, was he at fault for going onto the pitch and doing what he did or were the stewards to blame for not stopping him ?

 

[/quote]If we can just clear this up once and for all, it wasn''t James Chew''s fault.For one thing, he didn''t want to be there in the first place but somebody had bought him a ticket and he felt he had to attend.  Then before the game, because he was nervous and frightened about attending a live football match, he had too much to drink - the bar staff kept serving him and nobody in the pub asked if he was okay or whether he should maybe cut down a bit.  When he jumped onto the pitch, nobody stopped him from doing that and the stewards were indeed quite negligent, and the hand gestures he made only referred to his tree surgery business and how he sizes the wood before cutting it.   The other unfortunate gestures were picked up at school and he made them because he had been taught that this was what he should do by a society that didn''t care.  The fact he was even prosecuted shows the nanny state we live under and the fact he was given a ban only shows Liverpool fans are treated differently to everyone else.

[Firedawg 3]

My thoughts have always centred on the decision made that fateful day to open the gate in the first place. Surely whoever made the decision could not have taken it lightly and must have thought there was a ''life risk'' in the first place. My memory is not as good as it was but I seem to remember that there being around 5000 Liverpool fans there without tickets and I very much doubt this would have happened if it were us playing there instead. Surely if the fans outside were standing around idly chatting the decision would not have been taken.

I remember being at our semi final and only hearing that the game had been abandoned and not a lot else initially. It s heartbreaking for the families involved but I just cannot see the police being 100 per cent to blame for what happened.

[Mick Dennis 0]

This is an example of what I mean. Read the report. There was room in several pens at the Liverpool end. The gates were opened and fans went down a slope from which there was only access to pens in which people were already being crushed. Opening the fences at the front would have saved folk. But they were left shut. Ambulances remained outside, unused.

That night, the officer who had given the order to open the outside gate squad the fans had smashed it down. And so 23 years of lies began.

I really don''t want to get into an argument about details because the inquiry looked at every document (except those which Wednesday''s linsurers refused to release) and the report comprehensibly explains inescapable conclusions.

[Gardeningleave 0]

[quote user="Mick Dennis"]This is an example of what I mean. Read the report. There was room in several pens at the Liverpool end. The gates were opened and fans went down a slope from which there was only access to pens in which people were already being crushed. Opening the fences at the front would have saved folk. But they were left shut. Ambulances remained outside, unused.

That night, the officer who had given the order to open the outside gate squad the fans had smashed it down. And so 23 years of lies began.

I really don''t want to get into an argument about details because the inquiry looked at every document (except those which Wednesday''s linsurers refused to release) and the report comprehensibly explains inescapable conclusions.[/quote]

I understand what you are saying but the nagging doubt I have is this. A couple of weeks earlier I was at Carrow Road when Liverpool visited. I was on duty as a Pc and the pre match briefing went along these lines. The majority of LIverpool fans are well behaved but there is an element of fans that arrive late for a game, are drunk, they charge the gates and in order to prevent further problems ie crime outside Carrow Road the plan was to let them enter without payment or ticket and to be placed in a spare pen. This is exactly what happened.

I''ll make a presumption and say that the Police at Hillsborough would have had the same intelligence from other Police forces as we had.

I am not surprised that initial assumptions on the cause of the disaster were the supporters themselves, the grave error of judgement was treating the dead and injured as if they were authors of their own misfortune. Clearly they were not but turning a blind eye to patterns of behaviour prior to Hillsborough simply because it may cause offence to some is equally wrong. How many people would have died if the fans waiting outside the ground had waited patiently for their turn to get through the turnstiles with their ticket?

Wouldn''t it be interesting to see if there is footage of those fans that forced their way into Carrow Road and check the footage at Hillsborough to see if they acted the same way there that caused the gates to be opened. Just a thought.

Back to my garden.

[Captain Holt 522]

Nothing to do with Hillsborough, but the song is 100% true, it''s never their fault.

[Kathy 733]

I think what happens Saturday will depend a lot on if there is a minutes silence for John Bond, and whether it is respected by the Liverpool fans. If they keep quiet, then it could set the tone of mutual respect for the afternoon. If they dont, then it could be the trigger for one or two low lifes to start the chanting.

[drurys testamonials V 15 0]

Best give those who sing the Tony Martin song some superglue for their gobs as they''re likely be the ones who''ll sing what you don''t want them to

[Firedawg 3]

Ok I admit, like 99% of fans I had only read bits and pieces of the report and the police did themselves no favours especially with what has come to light in the last week. So are you saying that from day one you knew that the Liverpool fans were ''Blameless'' and the police were totally at fault ? There were so much mis-information bandied about in the weeks after it was hard to know who to believe,

I think what riles other fans is the ''Holier than thou'' attitude and yet they tend to forget about Heysel.

[Skerritt 0]

Completely agree, show them respect as we would expect them to participate in the silence for John Bond.

[Firedawg 3]

Gardeningleave, your comment makes an interesting read.

One can only assume if the fans allowed in at Carrow road for free then passed the message on it would quickly gain momentum and if fans thought ''Turn up, make a bit of noise and we might get in free'' then you understand how the numbers of away fans travelling without tickets could swell.

[Mick Dennis 0]

Why don''t we look at CCTV of the crowd at the Norwich game? Because there wasn''t any. This was 1989.

There was rudimentary CCTV at Hillsborough: two tapes. They went missing from the locked police control room on the night of the tragedy.

But the police did not have any intelligence, from the Norwich game or anywhere else, that fans had recently turned up late in order to try to get in free. We know this, because all their briefing papers were released to the inquiry.

The agitation outside started at 2.40 -- 20 mins before kick-off, not outrageously late -- when it became clear to everyone that there weren''t enough turnstiles to process the numbers in time.

The myth of fans turning up late, drunk, ticketless and determined to force their way in was created after the deaths.

This is my last word on this thread but, come on guys, don''t base your beliefs (or worse, your actions) on stuff we were told 23 years ago but which have been comprehensibly investigated and disproved.

If you can''t be bothered to read the report, just ask yourself why the police altered so many statements and then accept the report''s summary: the fans were not to blame.

I hated the Suarez t-shirts and the Tom Adeyemi incident and have written about both. I was at The Sun at the time of Heysel, so don''t need telling about that either.

But, at Hillsborough, 96 ordinary football fans died. It really, genuinely could have been us.

They were the victims and it really wasn''t their fault. If we sing ''''that song'''', on Saturday or in subsequent seasons, we can''t shout ''but we don''t mean Hillsborough'' and so it will always be a deeply offensive and hideously nasty song.

We are Norwich. We sing on our own often. We don''t need to recycle a Mancunian insult.

OTBC