Forums

Not to spin gold out of a tragedy, but surely the network of implicated police, local government and government parties exposed in the new report give the lie to any scoffing at conspiracy theory which suggests no large group could have been puppeteered into conspiring. Impuning the names of the dead and clearing the reputations of those in charge on the day seemed the sole goal of an entire machine of government and media causing many to question what they had in fact seen with their own eyes.

Posted: 13-09-2012 16:27 Post subject:

Have to agree with Ted on this one. I hesitated to devote a thread to this story, while I decided on the best way to handle it. This isn't the usual conspiracy theory, this turns out to be a massive cover-up, in the wake of an unmitigated police cock-up on a disastrously vast scale, of which many people have had a good idea of the outline, but where the newly disclosed details are both revealing and shocking.

A criminal conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, a cover-up at the bottom of which is not just a case of astonishing incompetence, but the possibility of serious criminal charges of culpability and criminal negligence. Not just a heartless, cold blooded attempt to shift the blame for the disaster on to the victims, but a truly shocking, mind numbing revelation, that around forty of the ninety victims who died might well have been saved, if things had been better organised, even some who were lying in the temporary morgue.

Truly, truly, mind numbing.

As to the Thatcher connection, beyond the possible collusion of the local Tory MP at the time, there's also the close symbiotic relationship between the police, the media and the Government that developed through the way the police and media were mobilised to deal with the likes of the Miners' strike and Greenham Common, during the Eighties, as an arm of Government policy. It could be argued that a certain callousness, conflict of interests and loyalties, might have developed, when it came to dealing with the public.

Posted: 13-09-2012 16:42 Post subject:

Posted: 14-09-2012 14:17 Post subject:

Definition of Conspiracy:
a secret plan or agreement to carry out an illegal or harmful act, esp with political motivation; plot

An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.

I think this topic counts as the coverup involved orchestrated illegal acts such as the changing of statements etc

Many would have regarded the idea that the police, government, FA etc would ever act in this way as a "conspiracy theory", now it's shown to be "The Truth"

Even after all this, some will still believe what they read in the papers. It should also be obvious that people in authority have their own agendas and personal or political bias and it's naive to accept the "official line" on any controversial subject or event without question

cheers
Dan

Posted: 14-09-2012 14:55 Post subject:

Posted: 23-05-2013 17:09 Post subject:

There was a panorama documentary about this on Monday, it's probably still on iPlayer.

One thing I learned is that the police officers did not change their statements. What happened was they were all asked to write their observations on paper, these were then typed up with the anti-police observations missing and given back to the police officers to sign. So less people were involved in the corruption than we first thought.

Posted: 24-05-2013 10:00 Post subject:

There is no doubt that a conspiracy was involved after Hillsborough to cover up the police and emergency services failings, and it has indeed changed my views on the likelihood of large scale conspiracies being successful

I grant the distinction between conspiring to deflect blame or cover up an embarrassing event, and a conspiracy to create an event (the whole False Flag nonsense) but was there not an element of conspiracy at Hillsborough even before the tragedy, with the ground repeatedly allowed to get away with no safety certificate, and with major events continuing to be held there?

Also, you have to question, had the political climate of the 1980's created a culture of conspiracy or cover up in the South Yorkshire Police, especially in regard to manipulation of the coverage of events at Orgreave?

Very striking on the Panorama documentary was the level of trust one police force had in another. I would assume that level of trust is necessary in their normal dealings, but of course the result of a conspiracy is that such trust is lost for a long time. Or maybe people just blank it and pretend it couldn't happen, which must be pretty near to the definition of naivety.

This leads us to a point raised elsewhere, that these acts of irresponsibility by some of the people in this country entrusted with the most responsible posts are feeding into a wider process of destroying our trust in our nation's basic institutions.

And now people know that at least some of the conspiracies really did happen (the concealing of the true picture regarding the EU/EEC by the Heath and Wilson governments is another, confirmed by documents released under the 25 year rule) then unless genuine efforts are made to restore trust by actually prosecuting offenders, I can only see the loss of trust continuing.

Posted: 24-05-2013 15:56 Post subject:

The thing about disasters like this, is that they have to happen before we learn the lessons from them. If the police had closed the gate to the central pens when they opened the exit gate, then no one would have died that day. And so no lessons would have been learned.

So at some subsequent game there would have been an identical disaster, caused by very similar circumstances.

I suppose Hillsborough was the Titanic of the football world.

Posted: 24-05-2013 16:44 Post subject:

Posted: 24-05-2013 19:41 Post subject:

I found the Panorama programme quite fascinating, especially with the repeated "whitewashing" that was done - as soon as one avenue for getting to the truth was opened, a bloody great bureaucratic barricade was put in place.

This whole sorry affair hasn't really "convinced" me of the practicality of any major conspiracy, if only for this being my perception of the Hillsborough disaster:

Hypothesis Alpha
A senior politician turns around to a few high-ranking policemen (who by-and-large are more politically-motivated than the rank and file coppers) and says "Look, lads, we need a lethal disaster at a public event - don't ask why.
"Now, at this given moment we want these gates open. Our boffins say the crush will be enough to kill as many as we need. We need you to make sure there's little ambulance coverage and, when the dust settles, you can doctor your bobbies statements to make it look like the fans were to blame. Any inquest we've got sewn up and the journo's can be bought of easy.
"Play ball and you get a decent promotion or early retirement before you have to answer any damn fool questions.
"So ... you in or what?"

Hypothesis Beta
A senior politician approaches a few high ranking policemen and says "Look, lads, you've made an almighty feck-up here! Don't care who actually did the deed but we can't have a 'nobody to blame' situation here. The public will want heads off here, and unless you play ball, it'll be yours! This is what we'll do ...
"Communication is already a bloody shambles there, and one commentator was told that the exit gates were opened - he assumed the crowds outside pushed 'em in so we're running with that for the mo'. By the time the street press get to the ground, every witness still there will be either dead, in shock ... or paid by us! So, word will be drunken yobs broke in and 'accidentally' started a crush.
"We'll cover the press - we've got friends in low places, if you see what I mean - and we can pootle about with any enquiry. All you've got to do is make sure your bobbies statements don't conflict with the official line. Do this and you'll do all right - you'll keep your jobs, your pensions ... and your heads.
"So ... you in or what?"

Now Alpha may be popular with conspiracy theorists, thriller writers and so on but in practical terms it still doesn't convince. Regardless of the motives behind the organising group, they still have to rely on the cooperation of a large number of 'organisers' to move the actual 'workers' around. And you have to rely on the 'organisers' absolute trust in you to come up with a reason for them to play ball - the bigger the crime (mass murder, say), the bigger the bloody incentive! After all, this isn't letting some philandering politician off the hook for beating up a prostitute.
Beta, on the other paw, is perfectly feasible (if morally reprehensible): You are offering a way out of a terrible situation which could personally destroy the participants unless they take part in a cover-up. It plays on the participants sense of survival in a situation which has happened beyond their control. To ask them to commit to a conspiracy, they need to be made to do a criminal action then cover up the deed to get off the hook ... far more chancy in reality.

All I see is a lot of (now) forgotten politicians and ranking coppers dragging their heels, shrugging their shoulders and denying anything, in the vague hope that it'll all be swept away by the demise of those who want to get to the truth! Even if fingers, finally, get pointed those who should be made accountable because of their errors and participation in a cover-up of feck-up ... they'll be beyond any public censure, either by deep retirement from "active" life or their own natural death.

Posted: 25-05-2013 14:33 Post subject:

Posted: 25-05-2013 16:59 Post subject:

Posted: 25-05-2013 17:38 Post subject:

*Dives for cover*

Posted: 25-05-2013 21:56 Post subject: