KopTalk.com Forums Football Liverpool FC Forum Dangerous Hearsay

I can see your point, Stan. As far as the main point goes - not making a scapegoat out of someone who is no longer around, and can therefore no longer be held accountable - I agree to a certain degree. I think there are other people that should be targetted, but I believe they very much will be. I don't think for one second that the HJC and the HFSG will be happy to tarnish Thatcher's name and leave it at that. Every guilty party should be investigated, and held accountable for any wrongdoing that's proven. If that includes post-humously blackening Margaret Thatcher's name, then so be in.

Stan, you're perfectly entitled to your own opinion about her. To be honest, I'd expect that you're very much in a minority with that opinion when it comes to LFC supporters or Liverpudlians, but it's your own opinion nevertheless, and I respect your balls for giving it despite the fact you know it wouldn't be popular.

However, you've said there isn't a scrap of evidence to support any wrongdoing by her. As things stand, as far as we know, you're correct about that. It doesn't mean things won't come to light at some stage, though. You just have to look at the waves that have been made with the justice campaign so far. There was a time when people could have said there wasn't a shred of evidence to make the SYP accountable either, but things change. Whether Thatcher's (non-)accountability will change or not, remains to be seen. It's a possibility though, that she was being protected whilst alive. Now that she's dead, any protection may dwindle under increased pressure for full disclosure. Her part in any of this hasn't been disclosed as of yet, and you have to question why. She had dealings/correspondence of some kind - whether that's incriminating or not - there had to be something, but we won't know until it's released - if it is at all.

There are a lot of ifs and buts, and we'll just have to take it as it comes at the moment, but getting back to the main point, I don't think LFC fans or the people of Liverpool villifying her any further for the Hillsborough cover-up is going to detract from the other culprits/suspects.

Thanks for the response Bar and I agree with what you say. The way I see it we have waited 23 years for justice and I don't want to derail it. It has to go through the legal process and anything outside of that simply pushes justice further away. We have come a long way and there are clear questions to answer from the June report. It may be when these people are questioned more comes out I hope so. If I was duckenfield I would like to push as much blame as possible on those who can't answer back and I am sure he will. That is why these unsubstantiated accusations work in hs favour. We have to trust in due process. One question never answered from my perspective is why the crowd control outside the ground was none existent in 89 compared to 88. We have never got an answer to that and only duckenfield knows I would not like him to have a get out clause saying the government of the day instructed him to when most of the people who would refute it are no longer with us. I feel strongly about this aspect because my life was on the line because f it probably only for 10 minutes or so outside the leppings gates but we were pretty worried at one stage. I woud like to understand the reason after all these years. It annoys me so much when the facts and legal process is not adhered to because it just muddies the water all over again I really don't know what goes on in some people's minds. If ts found Margaret thatcher deliberately covered it up I will be as mad as anyone but until that comes out its just hearsay and private agendas. Certainly the union and far left in Liverpool will try to make as much capital as they can irrespective of evidence Derek Hatton (now a property developer) was spouting off in the media.

Stanley, if you are going to try and have a serious debate on it its necessary to pose the correct question from the start. Now the thread is '' dangerous hearsay. '' Whats your next one goiong to be Thatcher loved doing housework?

Now is the question;Are we allowed to slag off famous dead people on their track record and more especially leaders who encouraged (there is proof of this) institutions of law and order to 'clamp down' on all forms or working class protest

or is the question about forensic proof? (colombo style proof which you know is probably impossible to obtain). I am just suggesting your posts are deliberately merging the two things.

There is enough proof that she destroyed as much as she created. I think (no offence) that you must have so bought into the ideology of thatcher at the time that you find it hard to give her an honest appraisal and are using this proof idea to diffuse the sentiment.

As has been said the people no matter how ill educated do not think Thatcher organized events. It is well established that Thatcher leaned on the police force to get tough before and after hillsborough.

The lack of proof does not mean that Thatcher should escape with image untarnished. The fact she was gone in 1990 means nothing How long does it take to cover up a police fu** up? It was the police that had to do the painstaking stuff of altering statements .

Are you suggesting that maggie haters are thinking that maggie would be phoning up the police hq to find out how the cover up was going on. As with most cover ups the stooges at the bottom of the chain usually act thinking that they will lose their jobs if they don't act in this way. A policeman knows whether one likes police or not that he is risking his job or worse, when he starts tampering with evidence.

If all of your warped respect for thatcher holds you to defending her role in one of the most sordid affairs in British history, then shame on you.

You know you will never get a photograph of thatcher tampering with evidence but thats what you are asking for. At the moment as far as I can see there is only a supposition of guilt But why do ministers resign ? Because the scandals happen on their Watch and they get caught. Maggie was involved trying to deflect blame from police, we now know that whether she knew their methods or not she encouraged them (have proof) to manipulate the truth. That is disgusting and so is any one who supports her role. in the affair.

There is a reason why ministers and présidents resign. Its because they are RESPONSABLE whether by accident or with intent for their actions and their cabinet members beneath thems actions. You will never get proof. Noone need s proof except foryourself apparently that Thatcher had a hand in it. She may not be guilty by association in a criminal sense, but she is guilty of being a ruthless bitch who deliberately created mass employment to smash the workers political clout.

Following your reasoning although you are correct on the level of proof, imagine the situation of a dictator like Hitler how many people did he order to kill others? What if Hitler or some nutter like him just delegated all his work. No paperwork but a nod to Goebbels. Hitler wrote it all down in mein kamph so no running away from the truth for him. But Goebbels and all the rest carried out his work and you can down the chain. All of them ended up saying they were only obeying orders (well most of them) The point I am trying to make is that ultimately when you have a thirst for power you have to take responsibility should it go wrong.

I never saw that excuse me c**t apologise for anything thats what makes it worse .Even that little sh*t blair pretended to be sorry about Iraq or aspects of WMD etc. Her no.

Hansen thanks for the response. Not sure where hitler comes into this but I am sure there is a logic somewhere.

But you must agree we follow legal process and evidence ?

I think its unlikely that Thatcher will be made the single scapegoat for a cover up.The families will go after anyone and everyone that covered up the truth.With regards to Thatcher knowing what really happened well we all knew at the time that she only ever slept for 4 hours a night,why? because she always wanted to have every single piece of information on each and every subject she may be questioned about.For that reason alone we could be forgiven for thinking she wasn't that ignorant to what was/may have been going on at the time.After-all she made sure she was armed with all the information she needed to bring down the unions for instance,which her henchmen may have provided her with so why wouldn't they advise her about the truths of Hillsborough? or was she that incompetent she wouldn't double check or at least have an inclination that something wasn't right,the families knew something wasn't right so if she missed it maybe she wasn't that great after all?. People will think what they like wont they but can we ever rely on the truth coming out?.....perhaps not.

great post lain and this is exactly what i have been saying she and her government did know the truth , and at best just did nothing or the worse chose to cover it up to not only protect her and her government but the police and the establishment , we have seen it recent times with bettison running scared because thankfully this government couldnt or wouldnt protect the police top brass like it would have done in years gone by including the labour governments .

really ashamed no chance mate , its you who should look at your self doing everything to protect thatcher and her government and as for duckinfield and murray who is now dead because the 1989 government protected the police and 23 years later the truth came out they would have seen jail if the 19879 government had done its job ..

The faimliies will focus on the evidence from the June report that's what the new enquiry will be based. But once they start to question people new things may come out. Margaret thatcher did what any prime minster would do rely on advisers yes they use judgement and question. Do I think they could have done more I like to think so but really that was fairly typical of the time and things are better now but not much look at Stafford hospital hundreds of people dying some so thirsty they drank out of vases and one Lad dialled 999 ( he later died) yet the guy in charge is still managing the NHS today in 2013". Had kinnock been in charge I am totally convinced the outcome would have been the same as proven by labours inactiion in the enquiry in hillsborough which came to nothing

Not protecting anyone least of all duckenfield who you are helping.

Faz do you think the man in charge of Stafford hospital should do time ? How is that different to hillsborough same thing an error lessons learned etc how the establishment covers its back.