View Full Version : Boris Johnson, why are you bothering?

Training Risky
20th Oct 2004, 13:10
I understand that Howard has ORDERED Boris to go to dat grate city of Liverpool to grovel in apology to the residents for an article in the Spectator.

In this day and age of free speech, why should he have to!

If you don't like what his mag says, don't buy it.

Akin to the death of the 'Queen of our Hearts' in 1997, the public outpooring of grief was misplaced. All this for a man who underestimated the risks and went to Iraq under his own free will to earn a sh*tload of cash.

Now fair enough, Ken did not deserve what happened to him.... but neither does any UK serviceman who is getting shot at daily for Dubya's re-election campaign.

Spare a thought for them instead, Liverpool?....


20th Oct 2004, 13:14
I agree it's sad, but would anyone really have cared if it had only made the headlines once?

In my opinion they played into the hands of the captors by publicising it so much over such a long period. I can't remember any other hostages getting the same treatment.

20th Oct 2004, 13:24
Mark Steyn - Daily Telegraph:

"...The other day I received a letter from a very eminent British historian mocking me for my support of America, a country of 300 million cowering in fear because a statistically insignificant 3,000 people were killed and a couple of buildings demolished. Ha-ha.

I wonder how he felt watching a country of 60 million drowning in "mawkish sentimentality" (The Spectator) because just one man had been killed. I credit The Spectator with the phrase "mawkish sentimentality" but that was on Thursday. By Friday, their editorial had been attacked as being insensitive to the great City of Liverpool, Michael Howard had (naturally) denounced it and, with a Scouse fatwa about to descend, Boris Johnson decided the previous day's robust words were no longer operative.

The Islamists have made a bet – that the West, in its twilight days, is too soft and decadent to muster the strength for this long struggle. Would you say the Britain on display to the world in the weeks before Mr Bigley's murder would have disabused them of that analysis or confirmed it?

Victim culture is now the default mode of our times. But Mr Bigley wasn't a victim. He was a combatant, even if he didn't know it. In a terrorist war, we are all potential combatants: we board a flight in Boston, we set off for work in Manhattan, we go clubbing in Bali, or to the bank in Istanbul, or to school in Beslan – and something happens. And, except for that last category, we should all be grown-up enough to understand that....."

20th Oct 2004, 13:30
It doesn't matter whether it is Liverpool or Limoochabi, he has peed a lot of people off by saying that, a bit thoughless but as you say free speech and all that. If you don't like what his mag says, don't buy it. I think the several million people here in the uk who know about this didn't buy his mag at all but have read/heard about it elswhere.

Sailor Vee
20th Oct 2004, 13:43

So, how come even Derek Hatton agreed with Boris? 'De mitey city' only adopted the guy on his demise, a demise partly brought about by not taking advice on the level of security required.

20th Oct 2004, 13:46
What happened to freedom of speech, maybe the truth hurts, that's why they don't like what was said. Boris Johnson is entitled to his opinion, and I am not saying I agree with him, it was a terrible thing that happened to Ken Bigley. Will there be a day when everything in the papers is going to be subject to constant apologies. :confused:

20th Oct 2004, 13:55
Good old Boris.

Some of his stuff recently has been of the highest calibre, it's refreshing to see that not everyone in the public eye feels obliged to censor their views to avoid offence.

Wonderful piece of his on safety phobia in the papers a week or two ago. Alas I've lost the link so I've just pasted a brief snippet of it here.

Cheers, SSS

Safety phobia isn't funny – it can be fatal
By Boris Johson
(Filed: 07/10/2004)

You should have seen the way we all laughed yesterday at the conker story.

You know the conker thing: the way some head teacher, probably a Lib Dem, decided to forbid his pupils from playing conkers without first fortifying themselves with safety goggles. Goggles for conkers! Ha ha ha. Ho ho ho.

Everyone in the Bournemouth amphitheatre threw back their chins and howled. What will they think of next, eh? It's political correctness gawn mad, I tell yer; and then everyone wiped their eyes, and sobered up, and prepared for the next question - a serious question, we assumed.

And that, I thought, is the problem. We have become so used to this kind of thing, the health and safety fetish, that we kind of bleep it out. Children not allowed to take eggboxes to handicraft classes in school for fear of salmonella. Ha ha ha. Risk assessments to be carried out before every school trip. Tee hee hee.

Of course, it is mad that a teacher has to go to the proposed destination (the Science Museum), scout it out for paedophiles, highly polished floors and other hazards, and then file a report on these dangers and keep it on the school premises.

Of course, we know that such madnesses are reduplicating at a terrifying rate; and yet somehow they are so numerous, and so mad, that the wells of our indignation are running dry. We treat it as a joke, when the modern obsession of risk is sometimes very far from a joke.

There are two broad approaches to life, and to government. One is associated with the Left, the Labour Party and the hysterically bossy Liberal Democrats; and I might as well tell you, since I am sitting here in this increasingly optimistic Tory conference, that one is associated with Conservatives.

Lefties tend to believe above all in the role of the state in ironing out human imperfection. That is why it appeals to them to ban hunting, smoking, smacking, snacking, and to swaddle everyone in the public and private sector with a great choking duvet of risk assessments.

Conservatives tend to think that of the crooked timber of humanity was no straight thing ever made, and that it is no business of the state to be endlessly sawing and sandpapering us all into shape. If you try to exterminate all risk, you impose rules that squeeze out individual responsibility, and deprive everyone in the public services of the flexibility they need to deliver the results they want.

It is a sign of the decline of any great civilisation that its people begin to worship strange gods: one thinks of the late Roman interest in Egyptian man-jackals. Now we have a new divinity that commands the adoration of the governing classes, as nannying and multiple-bosomed as Diana of Ephesus. Her name is Phobia, and sacrifices are being made at her altar.

20th Oct 2004, 14:00
I did have a great liking for Blonde Boris, but with his action to the reactions of his boss I fear he is just another poodle as most others who will do almost anything to keep in with the boss.

If the Scousers were really peed off about this we would have had riots in the streets, and burning cars not just Hatton who is tenth rate and just not listened to.

Should we all stop passing jokes about the pool now!

name and address withheld due roumers of sensitive Liver Jihadists looking for moi!!


20th Oct 2004, 14:02
Derek who...........? :rolleyes:

20th Oct 2004, 14:17
BRL, Derek "Degsy" Hatton used to be the leader of Liverpool Council.

Now makes a living on Manchester based radio station Century FM.

20th Oct 2004, 14:29
Free speech.

That's the thing that TB was defending during the Labour party conference when he was heckled by the party member in the audience.

Good old TB says;.....

“Isn’t it good we have a democracy and free speech in this country so this man can speak?"

........As the bloke gets roughly manhandled out of the building in handcuffs and subsequently arrested!

Free Speech indeed!

By the way, are WE really living in a democracy?

tony draper
20th Oct 2004, 14:47
No, as far as I know we still live in a Constitutional Monarchy.
I like Boris,although tiz difficult to know if his buffoonery is a act or not, he occasionaly comes out with a gem, I rate him a bit more honest than the average politico, but that could be down to his buffoonery not being a act.

20th Oct 2004, 15:46
To some extent I am afraid I would agree with his comments re: Ken Bigley. By all means show sympathy, but with limits.

However, he made some inaccurate comments regarding Hillsborough in the same editorial which were way off the mark.

I have just spotted a BBC Comments page related to this. Makes interesting reading in that most people seem to not give two hoots about what he said.

I'd like Paul Bigley to make his comments about Boris in a room full of relatives of service personnel killed in Iraq, now that would make for an interesting debate!

20th Oct 2004, 15:56
Over the last few months, I have become more and more disillusioned with comentary; political statement; proscelitisation and "radical fundamentalism".

For me, Boris Johnson has been providing a level of thought and interpretation with which I can relate.

This recent episode has, unfortunately, passed me by as I have "been abroad".

My question to myself is this: Has BJ suddenly jumped completely out of his normal bandwidth or has he said something I had not previously considered relevant.

My conclusion is that it is neither.

Boris has been quoting many instances over the months where the Blairite government has been increasingly removing the "Labour" principle of "The People's Voice" and replacing it with the "Tony Blair voice of self preservation". (Voir Conkers; Hunting; etc)

(The Lord above, whomever or whatever you belive or presume him/her/it to be, will, I trust forgive me for appearing to make political statements leaning away from a "socialist/democratic" (please note both are without capials) viewpoint I believe I have.)

The latest developments re Bigley have only served to enforce my belief that the British government is reaping the rewards in both the domesic and international political arena that it deserves. That is a political pawn of GWB and a deaf ear to the UK population.

"The movement of British Troops will be a military response to a military request." Who does he think he is kidding that there is a Poltical influence on this. Why would 650 British troops be suddenly required to leave their designated arena of responsibility to fill a hole that 180 000 US troop could not find within their own ranks enough competant troops do the same job.

So to go back to the thread's "raison d'etre" in so far as BJ is required to apologise - why should he. What he (or the words of his magazine) have expressed is nothing more than the thoughts of a large number of British citizens. Are they all to cut out their tongues??

Boris Johnson is an individual with whom I would love to enter into a debate. We have such similar and yet idealogical diverse points of view that I would probably just end up confusing myself to the point that communication via JB would be my only solice to reasoned thought. ;)

tony draper
20th Oct 2004, 16:07
I don't think it was the people of liverpool anyway, it was the media flogging the story for all it was worth in order to get as much milage out of it as poss ,just like they stirred up and created the hysteria following the sainted Diana's death.
They do not report the news now they create it.

20th Oct 2004, 16:11
Tony, you have probably hit the nail so squarley on the head there as to obliterate it beyond recognition.

SPIN is SO easy to apply now that there is so much being applied by so many doctors that it is difficult to discern which way the ball is moving at all, let alone which way it is naturally moving!

20th Oct 2004, 16:12
It is worth actually reading the article on the Spectator website, or in the magazine.

On the subject of Mr Bigley, I am of the opinion that Boris has not said one single thing out of order concerning what happens. He does not attempt to support or justify the means of Mr Bigley's demise, but he does point out that Mr Bigley was there out of choice.

In fact, the following quote from the article is the most sensible thing I have seen written in a long while!
Mr Bigley might not have read the last entries in Captain Scott’s journals, but they have a resonance for him: ‘We took risks. We knew that we took them. Things have turned out against us. Therefore, we have no cause for complaint.’ Captain Scott’s mentality used to be the norm for chancers and adventurers. Now, after generations of peace and welfarism, and in a society where the blame and compensation cultures go hand in hand, our modern-day buccaneers seem determined to go about their activities not merely unprepared for the likely consequences, but indignant about them.

20th Oct 2004, 16:40
I have just seen the visit of Boris to Liverpool on the news and took interest in the radio phone in when Boris was publicly insulted by one of the Bigley boys. Maybe he was the other one who also lived abroad not paying UK taxes, but I don't know.

Bigley Bro demanded Boris' step down from public life.

Not bad from someone who said, if it's the same bro, " Mr Blair, you have blood on your hands"

I don't hear this bro asking, nay, demanding that the Prime Minister step down from office.
And I won't, Boris was an easy target, much like Ken was!

What nationality are the Bigleys anyway?
What about the troops?

Just an observation. :cool:

20th Oct 2004, 17:24
"Our blood, his guts" said the GI in the movie "Patton". And they say that the truth is enduring...?! That was WWII. More than ever, it would appear that one man's convictions are epitomised by another's death. Ken is just one more following on from time immemorial...:\ Oh, that democracy one day would become so powerful that leaders of nations would be subjected to the test of the gladiator. Imagine Sadaam, George and Tony, armed merely with swords and their convictions. I would have put the odds on Sadaam coming through. Until the crowd gave the thumbs down and let the lions in...:O (man-eater in-waiting)

B Fraser
20th Oct 2004, 17:42
I once landed a balloon on Boris' property near Thame and was approached by a farmworker who was slightly less than pleased at the unwarranted intrusion. Rather than quote the air navigation order in connection with limited options for fuel, daylight etc, I just said I was a floating voter. :}

Old Boris seems to be a nice enough chap and while I have never voted for his party, the following link may get him some support from these pages http://www.boris-johnson.com/images/photogallery/borishelicopter.jpg

bagpuss lives
20th Oct 2004, 18:04
Frankly, the comments made by Boris relating to the Hillsborough tragedy were not only absolutely disgraceful, but highly inaccurate too.

Absolutely unforgivable.

The Otter's Pocket
20th Oct 2004, 19:49

I agree with you about the Hillsborough incident. However even as a small boy at the time I did think that people were going a bit over the top. It was a very sad time in the city, made worse by the SUN daily rag.

As I have got older I have seen what Boris has mentioned get worse and worse. Dianaism...Kenism... all tragic events, but more and more people are starting to wear their grief on their sleeves. Almost like a badge, showing how they can grieve more than their neighbour.
This is also creeping ino Pprune. Prehaps we should have a condolences thread so that discussion and learing can take place without poetry and look at me posts.
It has become like the shrines at the side of the road to somebody killed in a road accident, should we put up shrines outside hospitals were most of us pass away.

This year many important and influencial people have passed away, but as the idiots have no interest in them, then they can rest in peace.

I am a Scouser...although I don't have a crap perm, tash, or the ability to undo wheel nuts with my thumb and trigger finger. I was embarrased to see these plebs getting air time.

Boris you get half of my vote for the gist of the arguement and threw it away by appealing to the media and the pnumptys.
However I bet your circulation has gone through the roof!

20th Oct 2004, 20:16
I like Boris Johnson and, like him, I'm aghast at the way that public grieving seems to be on the way to becoming a competitive sport.

What on earth we'd do if, which Heaven forfend, this country were ever to fall victim to a real disaster I simply shudder to think. :mad:

2 sheds
20th Oct 2004, 20:56
As I understand it, BJ did not even write the article in question. However, it would seem that the reference to Hillsborough was OTT at least and he, as editor, was man enough to accept editorial responsibility and issue a prompt and very sincere televised apology for any offence caused.

It is a great pity that so many citizens of Liverpool - or, at least, the ones interviewed by the sh1t-stirring media - could not have the good grace to accept it in the right spirit, thus inadvertantly proving the contention of the article.

20th Oct 2004, 22:10
I think Drapes makes a very good point. The media seem to be so powerful today that they do seem to have this power to create these great circus events.

Diana is an excellent example of this, how big a role did they have with their blanket coverage and their portrayl of her as a Deity, in turning the UK at the time into one big funeral home? It was so tacky even Vegas would have been ashamed to have put something like that on.

Did they whip the populace up into the frenzy that they found themselves in? Didn't they have a huge role in promoting that massive gathering at Kensington palace?

And didn't they come dangerously close to causing a Royal crisis with their questioning of the Queen over the "flag" saga?

Media editors must laugh themselves sick every night thinking how they have the populace in their control. And I have the say the UK citizens are the worst suckers around with regards to the promotion of the royal family. The Royals use the media to ensure their survival and the media get great sales every time they run a RRoyal story.

"This week, we look inside Harry's Dorm at Eton......"

Ooooooh, what excitement!

What a cozy cartel that is!!

20th Oct 2004, 23:22
Boris's article (or not as the case appears to be) was right on track, though his aim was, to me, slightly askew.

Whether he wrote every word or merely gave his sentiments to a ghost writer he certainly hit a few nails on the head.

Whilst mentioning 'hawkish sentimentality' he should have applied it to the whole of the UK, as he intoned in the article in the Telegraph quoted above about compensation culture.

It seems to me that he has a point about Liverpool being the originator and the nestbed or such sentimentality, though as we can perceive his reference to Hillsborough to be incorrect in the light of the inquiry I'm quite sure that doubts remain in most people's minds as to the causes of that particular incident.

Maybe linking the unlikely non-association with pissed up fans for the accident with the hawkish sentimentality shown afterwards might have been a better idea. This could then lead to the no-blame culture which appears to be a favourite of government and civil service officials.

Credit to Boris though, he has thrown himself to the lions and appologised as a leader of old would have.

There is no doubt that his comments about Liverpool were a slur but the difficult thing to stomach is that it applies to all of England.

I have little sympathy with Bigley's plight as I have little with the numerous war correspondents who died in the line whilst reporting guts and glory. No-one died without knowig the risks, though the media's response was, as ever, disgusting.

We appear to be a nation of sheep who bleat incessantly once the dogs of war, or journalism, round us up.

Bigley died for a cause, that being easy money. We need people to take the same risks and I see nothing wrong into entering into a potentially dangerous, but lucrative, contract. However the stir caused by his family's emotional appealing shows Boris to be at least somewhat correct, though not just in Liverpool.

21st Oct 2004, 00:14
To be honest, and I have just come off the phone to a few people in Liverpool, no-one really gives two-hoots about this whole thing up there.

As I said in my first post, it could be anywhere and as someone points out above, the scary thing is the way the media can turn these things on their head, and make them into massive events.

bagpuss lives
21st Oct 2004, 00:17
We all know that certain publications will do anything to enrage, or try to enrage, the people of Liverpool for a bit of sport and few sales to those who should know better.

21st Oct 2004, 01:05
Sorry NF01 et al
but I "listened" to an interview on BBC R2 and the "Present" editor of that [much] villified rag, the SUN. They were not the first paper to run the story, it came from a "stringer". I cannot honestly remember the differences in the Headlines, but the Sun had [so I heard] one word "different" to the rest, and was castigated..ok
Fifteen years on...."Liverpool" as a whole is still blaming the Police, [one man erred] the Opposition, [they were THERE], the Press/Media [they reported IT].
I am sorry that people lost their lives, I really am, but has "Liverpool" mourned Heysel as much as Hillsborough? where other "football fans" lost their lives?
I work [very closely] with, and know quite a few Scousers [outside the Job], and whilst most are great guys and gals, there are quite a few who DO give a Boris impression that the World is against them.
THIS is [I feel] the "general impression" that people feel about Liverpudlians

bagpuss lives
21st Oct 2004, 01:28
With an attitude like that then it all becomes rather self-perpetuating doesn't it chig? :)

Scousers supposedly believe that the World is against them, whilst as you admit, people seem to have a general impression that scousers feel as though the world is against them. The scousers therefore feel as though the world feels as though they feel as though the world is against them and hence it all becomes rather complicated and rather difficult to type, as you can see :p

Where does it end? Stereotypes are there to be smashed and the one pertaining to Liverpudlians is no different I feel then any of the other nasty ones that circulate about any city, any race, any colour or any creed.

The circumstances surrounding the Heysel disaster are rather different to Hillsborough too I feel. At Heysel the Liverpool fans were, apparently, being pelted with all manner of missiles after the good natured banter in the ground turned nasty. The Liverpool fans ran at the offending Juventus fans forcing them into towards a wall which then, very very sadly, collapsed on top of them.

As it was linked with crowd violence I think it's a disaster over which Liverpool fans feel a certain amount of shame. Both sets of supporters were clearly in the wrong and both have accepted as such. I'm sure the Liverpool fans still mourn the tragedy?

At Hillsborough there was no crowd trouble and the pushing occurred as a result of the police yelling at the fans to get through the (wrong) gates and move to the front (basically).

It must be hard for those affected by the tragedy not to blame the police when they were clearly to blame (or at least their top bods were) and it must be hard for the people of Liverpool not to blame The Sun and the other rags of the time for printing such things as they did.

They claimed fans were stealing from dead fans. That has been proven to be totally false. What a disgusting thing to print. They claimed that the whole disaster was caused by drunken Liverpool fans arriving late and causing trouble around the Leppings Lane gates. That has been proven to be totally false. It doesn't matter who said it first and who went on the print it. Whether the people involved were from Liverpool, Leeds or London, the media must not be allowed to print such upsetting and wholly untrue lies.

I'm completely sure if they were Arsenal fans (God forbid) or Man Utd fans (God forbid) or indeed any other fans in the same situation then the reaction of the home cities would have been exactly the same.

21st Oct 2004, 09:01
I for one support Boris,got the balls get up and be counted even if it was a good publicity stunt. As for his wordings on Hillsborough, well the fault without question there has always rested on the unruly behaviour of so called liverpool fans, (" I have no ticket but who cares have come to watch the match"). Some people even claim that the story of liverpool fans picking the pockets of the dead was trumped up!, once again in this case the camera dosen't lie. This sort of behaviour comes from being dragged up rather then brought up.

The Otter's Pocket
21st Oct 2004, 09:05
Very eloquent Niteflite and from a Manc as well. I never thought that I would hear the day when the enemy would stand up for the people of the Greatest City on Earth.

Maybe the world does turn.

bagpuss lives
21st Oct 2004, 09:35
You registered especially to post that? I wouldn't have bothered if I were you. It's either a very poorly constructed and ill advised attempt to get a rise out of people (see how we're all enraged / in stitches laughing) or, more frighteningly, actually what you're morally bankrupt and inaccurate enough to think.

Either way, it's very very poor but thank you for sharing your rather bigoted views with us nonetheless :)

And The Otter's Pocket, I'm not a Manc nor am I a scouser which I suppose means I can be reasonably impartial when it comes to the old M62 rivalry :)

21st Oct 2004, 10:08
As for his wordings on Hillsborough, well the fault without question there has always rested on the unruly behaviour of so called liverpool fans,
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how to portray yourself as an uneducated prat online.

cargo boy
21st Oct 2004, 16:25
Well, as a scouser meself, I can assure you that the vast majority of us down here couldn't give a stuff about what BJ's magazine wrote about us. I know I agree that the "mawkish" behaviour is a media generate thing. Apart from a few politicos and the odd radio show phone in participant, most of us here in the 'pool couldn't give a stuff.

Yes, we can sympathise with Ken Bigleys plight and the despair his family are going through but we don't harp on about it or call in sick due to some stress related after effect. The mawkish ones are the same plebs that probably went on and on about the tragedy of Diana's death, ad nauseam.

We here in Liverpool are not offended by the comments in BJ's magazine. The media are pretending to be offended because it gives them the raison d'ętre to symbolically shriek with wounded pain and wring their hands with despair in some feeble attempt to sell more newspapers or gain greater viewing numbers. The few talking heads that came forward were mostly nobodies and we don't care about them anyway.

Dianism, Kenism, whatever you want to call it is alive and well in many part of this country and fueled by the media. There are enough people out there who are addicted to the kind of 'mawkishness' that is being discussed that the media can turn it into a feeding frenzy reaching mass hysteria proportions.

Personally, I think anyone expressing their grief publicly without personally knowing the victim or their family except through what they have gathered from the media is in need of some serious therapy. I'm sure some psychologists have a field day with the sentimentality that is sometimes paraded after these tragic events.

Life goes on and the vast majority of us scousers carry on with our lives without having jumped on the media bandwagon of outrage and indignation. Boris can say what he likes and the media luvvies will keep trying to drag the last ounce of reporting they can with all this. Some enterprising person will no doubt market a Ken Bigley memorial plate or cup or whatever. Those suffering from Dianism can purchase one and feed their mass-hysteria induced grief.

The tabloid readers can wallow in their editorially instructed grief and outrage. The rest of us will just carry on as 'normal' :rolleyes:

The Otter's Pocket
22nd Oct 2004, 18:56

My apple-ogies to you. It certainly is an area that one should not get involved in!

Today the whole of Nottingham had a two minute silence for a young teenager who was gunned down while walking home in the early hours. A terrible tradgedy, however the area was full of day time TV watching people.

I wonder how many police were there to keep an eye on these voyeurs?

We are having an all night vigil for my goldfish who is on a AAA battery incubator...Come on Goldie...

22nd Oct 2004, 20:56
Am I alone in wondering exactly what a 14-year old girl was doing wandering around Nottingham in the early hours of the morning?

Poor kid.....such a senseless waste. :(

22nd Oct 2004, 21:25
Seen it in Manch, Liverpool, Hull, Brum.....et al
Personally, I think that "Parental Responsibilities" have gone for a ball of chalk
EG..."Oh my poor baby"...was.."assaulted", or whatever....and it's not their fault. :mad:
Just whos' chuffin' fault is it?
we [really do] aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

22nd Oct 2004, 21:33
I fear you're probably right. chiglet.

Thank the Gods that my girls were always home at a reasonable (ie, my version of reasonable ;)) time.

22nd Oct 2004, 23:06
I've seen unbelievable levels of stupidity in Nottingham,

Often walking back through the Meadows in the early hours of the morning I'd see young children out and about still playing cowboys and indians, dollies and all the other things that 5,6,7 year olds do as though it was early afternoon.

I, like Caslance, am apalled that 14 year olds are out about around the St Annes, Hyson Green, Forest Fields areas of Nottingham in the early hours, but sadly, not surprised.


22nd Oct 2004, 23:28
The only similarity between Heysel and Hillsborough is that both happened at a football ground and that a large part of the blame can be attributed to the organisation and control of the events.

In Heysel the choice of stadium by UEFA was questionable to say the least. An old crumbling stadium chosen because of politics and to make matters worse the mixing of fans in certain areas of the stadium. Trouble had been brewing from much earlier on with quite a few skirmishes (1 or 2 LFC fans were stabbed outside the stadium). A lot of the fault is that of LFC fans for brawling inside the stadium but had it not been for the poor structure and the way fans were not segregated much less than 39 people would have died.

Hillsborough was the result of people letting fans be squashed to death. 96 people lost their lives, quite a few of them elderly or very young people. As a result of this incident the regulations at football grounds changed after the Hutton report. Had it been a few pissed up Scousers I am sure such an overhaul would have never taken place. Boris was very insensitive with his remarks, very much like the late Brian Clough who had said the same things only to retract his comments when his job at 442 magazine was at risk as a result of the comments. Boris did the same. The word CHICKEN comes to mind. Do people believe that Clough's or Boris' apolgies were heartfelt rather than forced?

To the 96 who died in Hillsborough and the 39 in Heysel, YNWA!

23rd Oct 2004, 13:39
We are having an all night vigil for my goldfish who is on a AAA battery incubator...Come on Goldie...

OP, hope Goldie is ok, if not:


An example of Boris's mawkish sentimentality or a genuine need?

My personal opinion - all of us have to face the deaths of loved ones sooner or later, deal with it and stop feeling sorry for yourselves. Liverpool, self pity city. (NB with the exception of the Hillsborough tragedy, Boris got that one completely wrong).

23rd Oct 2004, 13:53

What the hell is going on in Nottingham??

When I was there many moons ago, it was a really nice pleasant and friendly city. Now, it seems to have all changed with army's of Chavs and hellish kids wandering around causing trouble.

There seems to be so many reports about Nottingham these days for all the wrong reasons.

Mind you, there are parts of Dublin which are no better. Ask the poor Nurses, Doctors and porters in the City hospitals every weekend who have to deal with these scumbags. These Hospital heroes definitely do not get paid enough......And then there's the poor police, how they do it I'll never know.

Where the hell are the parents in all this?

The Otter's Pocket
23rd Oct 2004, 16:49

Thanks, but the cat got him...I certainly won't be calling jilly in Chorley...some people are just a little too soft or just nuts.

This week I have just heard the phrase Chav...it is so apt for the scum that grace our streets. I feel like asking them for the white trainers back, my taxes paid for their dole. I detest these people and their chav motors.

I would like to point out that there are people who play on the grief, similar to other cities, however what I would say is that these people are very quick witted, can get almost anything from the state and have no standards...please don't put the whole of the cities populace down...several of us have integrity.