Actually, cricket is easy enough to understand. It’s the APPEAL of cricket that’s inexplicable. 
OTOH, rhyming slang isn’t supposed to be understood, at least by outsiders. It comes from the cant of the London underworld and … (trails off into a pedantic explanation of linguistics)
Cartooniverse, the point is not that they are showing footage of the incident. The reason people are angry is that it is as part of a documentary linking sport and violence, the implication being that violence was responsible for the Hillsborough disaster when anyone who knows the facts will tell you otherwise.
With all due respect, Cartooniverse, you’re missing the point.
The problem with the documentary isn’t necessarily showing the footage, but the context it has been shown in. It’s being used as an example of violence in sport. It’s factually wrong. Imagine the uproar if a documentary showed clips of the holocaust and a voiceover linked it with the way a strong government keeps on top of troublesome uprisings, all part of law and order. It is using footage of a topic that’s very painful to a lot of people, and using it in a factually incorrect and inflammatory manner. I fully accept that the makers were American, and therefore had no idea of how controversial the footage was, and how much they had grasped the wrong end of the stick, but now it has happened, steps need to be taken. It is not acceptable to call it “regrettable” and take no further action, as appears to have happened here. It may not seem a big deal to you, but then you haven’t gone through what these people have gone through.
I went to a White Zombie concert once, and ended up in a crowd like L_C described as routine at soccer games. The whole time I was in it, I was scared, and I thought to myself how dumb it was, and why didn’t they set up chairs on the floor and sell individual seats. I saw some girl who was too close to the mosh pit and fell on the floor end up taken away in an ambulance. They couldn’t even get the girl out on the stretcher and had to have the bouncers shoving people out of the way (possibly causing more injuries). Next time I go to a concert I’ll make sure they’re selling individual seats, and not “FLOOR”.
How is this relevant? I’m surprised that nobody looked at this aspect of the soccer culture and said “wait, this is wrong, people could get seriously hurt or killed”. Especially after seeing that at most games someone passed out and had to be removed by passing them over the heads of the crowd.
As usual with humans, it takes a major tragedy for us to realize that something is wrong, and for that reason alone, I say that the police were not 100% responsible. The fact that your culture accepted these dangerous situations as routine puts the entire culture partly at fault.
All we really want (at least I want) is an admission that the police were not SOLELY responsible. Even if the report says otherwise.
c-goat, remember that over the years, just in football in the UK, millions of people have seen tens of thousands of games with only two major incidents of (tragic) note which can be directly attributed to the fact that people were allowed to stand and move freely in non-seated areas.
Standing at games was often exhilarating and sometimes a little scary. 10000 people bunched together singing the same song is quite a feeling. Many people would love to have standing areas again.
I’ve just re-read the first page of the thread. And, you’re right. I stick by my thoughts, but I missed the intent. There’s no excuse for MIS-using images that way. Period. Personally, I’m not going to buy it unless I know it’s been removed. ( And, I loved that fucking movie, and I’m dying to own the DVD ).
Cartooniverse
Why is that what you want? The report doesn’t say the police were wholly responsible, but they take the major share of the blame, as is right. The crowd behaved as a normal crowd, not unruly, etc, despite police claims after the event. The scenario the police wanted has probably never happened in the history of football. The police overwhelmingly failed to cope, and the direct consequence of this was tragic. Whichever way you look at it, the documentary footage, and link to violence in sport, is wholly wrong, and that is what I want from you
Thanks to an apparent simulpost, it looks like we have reached a point of agreement.
Sorry, I guess it’s just a big misunderstanding. When you said:
I misinterpreted it to mean you thought the police were 100% to blame for the tragedy. I still disagree with that standpoint, but you just said you don’t think that.
The link attributing it to “violence in sports” was wrong. The creators of the documentary were wrong for portraying it that way. The makers of the Gladiator DVD, however, I still fail to see as responsible for the link. They saw a documentary about gladiators, and thought it would fit well. I also don’t see how showing the footage is wrong (other than that it was portrayed wrong). If it was the same footage, but the cause was attributed correctly, would it be wrong to show it? Would it still be mocking to the families?
I hate to sound like a born-again Nationwide League supporter, but there are plenty of old-fashioned terraces in England. They just don’t necessarily belong to any of the teams you’d actually want to watch.
No, in cases like this, it’s difficult for someone to be 100% to blame. They were, however, the main factor in the disaster.
The makers of the Gladiator DVD are responsible for whatever material is put on their DVD. They thought it would fit well, but failed to research it properly. It is their product that it features on, and as such, they are to be held responsible for any failings/misrepresentations on that product. If the documentary put forward views that the KKK were spot on in their approach, while the makers of the documentary would be at fault for making the film, the makers of the DVD would still be rightfully held to account by any backlash. If they don’t want to be associated with the documentary, they shouldn’t include it on their DVD.
“other than it was portrayed wrong”. That is THE MAIN POINT. That is what has caused so much outrage. You say it as an afterthought. If footage of the Hindenberg disaster was shown, as was mentioned earlier, and the account said “This was caused by the pilot being very drunk. It was his fault this happened”, the family of the pilot would be pretty damn fed up, dontcha think?
If it was the same footage, but portrayed correctly, would it still be mocking them? Depends on the footage and context shown. If it’s merely to titillate, then no. To be honest, I’m not the one to answer that. It’s up to the families concerned. I wouldn’t like to answer for them.
BTW, to the poster earlier who said the Hillsborough website hadn’t mentioned it, and accused me of hoaxing people, they would probably want to consult each other and lawyers before making any kind of official statement. Several newspapers have mentioned this story, and people have seen the incident. If you really did search the net for references and couldn’t find anything, I don’t think you searched long enough.
Just to point out, it wasnt at “most” games. it happpened infrequently, if not equal to the rate of people fainting at any type of concert.
and TomH, don’t tell me you wouldn’t like to spend a wet Wednesday evening watching Bristol City and Queens Park Rangers play to a 0-0 draw?
In response to the Opening Post, there have been developments.
Check out Universal’s response
This looks very hopeful, and it’s nice to see Universal treat the matter seriously.
From the dictionary:
So by moving, you mean…pushing…which is an act of violence…by people at a sporting event…which is what the documentary was about.
Perhaps because I’m not directly affected by this, I don’t understand why you’re so insistant on placing the blame ** entirely ** on the police. While they certainly are to blame for some actions, I also believe that the people in the crowd should shoulder some responibility as well. It’s all fine and good to say that they didn’t know that people were dying in the stadium, but perhaps if they weren’t **pushing and shoving ** and had just accepted the fact that the people in front of them weren’t moving, this tradegy could have been averted.
I believe what we have here is a debate between two unequal groups.
On one side are people who were actually living in England at the time of the incident and therefore had an excellent opportunity to follow the details of the matter and feel the public emotion to this horrendous tragedy.
I think the Americans here have to think about their reactions to seeing graphic footage of the Columbine High School murders on a Hollywood DVD. If you want to drag the foreigner factor into things, think a Bollywood DVD.
Now imagine that you had actually seen it live on TV when it happened.
On the other side we have people who were not following the matter with anywhere near the same attention as the British media (I have not read 100% of the thread, though).
Like I said, this is only how I see it, you have both built excellent arguments. The only difference is that one is built on loose sand, the other on a cliff.
— G. Raven
Are you deliberately thick? If the people in the front were moving, how did they get crushed? If you have space in which to move chances are pretty damn slim that you’re going to be crushed.
I see where you have said that the police are not 100% to blame. Does that mean that you think the fuckwits who did the pushing bear at least a minimum amount of responsibility? If not, where does it lie?
Atrael and Amulet - have you ever been in a large crowd? The movements of that crowd are echoed around every game that involves thousands of fans. The only differences in this occasion are the lack of foresight and lack of action of the police and the condition of the delapidated stadium, with it’s bottleneck entrance. If the fans were to blame, this situation would occur every week. I suggest you read appropriate material (as suggested in the O.P.) before laying the blame at the feet of the families and friends of those who died.
Atrael, pushing is the only way to get where you’re going in a crowd situation, and occurs EVERY GAME in football. If this was a big reason why the tragedy occurred, it would happen EVERY GAME. As it happens EVERY GAME, the police are employed to ensure the crowd are dispersed into appropriate areas, and cordon off the areas that are full. The fact that they did this is the principal reason for the tragedy. The crowd behaved, rightly or wrongly, as all football crowds do. The atmosphere was buoyant, there was no violence, it was largely made up of whole groups of friends and families, all supporting the same team. The principal reason it ended up as a tragedy is the negligence of the police.
Loathe as I am to quote entire posts again, Amulet and co seem to have missed a lot of the basic points, such as the usual behaviour of fans during football games. As the behaviour of the fans during this game was NORMAL, and expected and prepared for by all police forces during football matches nationwide, the behaviour of such fans cannot be cited as a reason for the disaster, as if the police had done their job, and warnings and official reports made years before the tragedy had not been ignored, and the man in charge had not been ill-prepared, the tragedy would have been avoided.
Phew. I’m glad to see that after a day away people like L_C and Biffer have managed to give out more of the actual facts and shown why Hilsborough was considered the responsibility of the police. I came back today to point out that the pens were steep. I wanted to say that in all really tight crowds, you have to push a bit to get where you are going (have none of you ever been to a club?) I was going to say that pushing your way through the crowd was considered normal and that it had been done for years in England with no prior tragedies. But I see that these points have already been made.
I was bloody annoyed when I made my last post, so I’m sorry if those previously uninvolved took offense. Nevertheless the point I was trying to make was this: if you really know nothing about a tragedy (as was the case here for dropzone and The Ryan), then insisting that those who experienced it, know all about it and for whom it is a very real experience are wrong, without even doing any research (“I don’t care what the Taylor Report said”), is the height of arrogance. And, frankly, offensive. I do hope that you see that. It is a long way from saying that you shouldn’t get involved in a debate where you don’t have the facts.
pan
[hijack] Ok, do we have a physics professor in the house? Regardless of who’s at fault, we do need to consider the dynamics involved, ie …reaction time.
Say you have ten cars traveling at 60 mph and spaced 100 feet apart and a dog runs into the road causing the first driver to slam his brakes and come to a complete stop. by the time the second driver stops he is on the first drivers bumper. Reaction time compounds and the third driver taps the second, fourth hits third, fifth slams fourth, etc. The only way to avoid a pileup would be for all ten drivers to see the dog at the same time and apply their brakes simultainiously, which is clearly impossable.
Would this not also apply to crowd dynamics? In other words, if I elbowed the person behind me and he then reacted by elbowing the person behind him, could our collective elbowing travel backward faster than the multitudes are surging forward?
I have no idea on this, it’s just something I recall from some class years ago, so instead of offering it as a fact, I’m posing it as a question. Hopefully someone smarter than me can phrase it better or explain any errors in my thinking.
Maybe it’s a stupid question, but I’m here to share and learn. [/hijack]