Mrs Thatcher may not be dead yet despite the wishes of many in the Labour Party and the TUC who want to dance on her grave but the BBC are happy to put the boot in whilst they’ve got the chance.
This report from the BBC claims Mrs Thatcher was concerned that the police were being criticised over Hillsborough (and plays into BBC intimations about her ‘defending’ the police because of their outstanding work policing the Miner’s strike).
Hillsborough papers: Thatcher’s concern about police criticism by Taylor
Margaret Thatcher had concerns that a report into the Hillsborough disaster constituted a “devastating criticism” of police, newly released papers show.
The then prime minister made the remark in response to a civil servant’s memo about the conclusions of the Taylor report into the 1989 tragedy.
The memo said then Home Secretary Douglas Hurd intended to welcome the “broad thrust” of the report.
But the PM urged him to welcome its “thoroughness and recommendations”.
The new report spells it out without interpretation and spin:
2.6.134 A subsequent briefing note requesting agreement to the Home Secretary’s proposed statement drew a strong response from the Prime Minister:
74 What do we mean by ‘welcoming the broad thrust of the report’? The broad thrust is devastating criticism of the police. Is that for us to welcome? … Surely we welcome the thoroughness of the report and its recommendations – M.T. [Margaret Thatcher].
2.6.135 This change was conveyed to the Home Secretary and adopted in his statement.
So Thatcher was concerned about ‘devastating criticism of the police’?
No she wasn’t.
Clearly she is not wishing to defend the police and is not ‘concerned about criticism of the police’…what she is concerned about is that the government ‘welcomes the thoroughness of the report’…….the previous phrasing, ‘welcoming the broad thrust of the report’, would have implied she was looking to criticise the police….she neither looks to criticise nor defend…what she wants to demonstrate is that the government seeks the truth and backs the findings of the report whatever they may be.
This is a highly misleading story, deliberately so, on a subject that is of great sensitivity and passion…..and one in which someone at the BBC has decided they can try to inflcit as much reputational damage to Mrs Thatcher as possible by falsely trying to make out she was attempting to protect the police from criticism.
Reading the new report it is quite clear that the government fully accepted the findings of the Taylor Report and that it was essentially police failures that lead to the deaths of 96 people at Hillsborough…..
2.6.125 The Home Secretary advised the Prime Minister that he had discussed the report with ‘colleagues most closely involved’.
72 LJ Taylor proposed to hold a press conference and Mr Hurd intended to respond via a Home Office statement.
2.6.126 While noting that the report was critical of SCC and SWFC, he stated that: ‘the most severe criticism is directed at the South Yorkshire Police; Taylor concludes that the main reason for the disaster was the failure of police control’.
Further, ‘senior officers involved sought to duck all responsibility when giving evidence to the Inquiry’, and ‘[t]heir defensiveness apparently infuriated the Judge’.
2.6.129 The briefing noted that Mr Hurd thought that the Chief Constable ‘will have to resign’ as the ‘enormity of the disaster, and the extent to which the Inquiry blames the police, demand this’
While being ‘a very sorry episode … there seems no reason to think that the report’s conclusions are wrong’.
It is more and more apparent that it is the BBC who welcome the criticism of Thatcher more than anything else and no slur or smear is beneath them.
UPDATE:
The BBC has decided to put its authority and credibility behind completely unsubstantiated and highly politicised comments by Jack Straw….no where is he made to reveal any evidence to back up those claims…because there is none…it is pure wishful thinking and political opportunism of the most despicable kind, shabby beyond belief even for a politician.
The BBC is keen to make sure you know that Norman Tebbit is a ‘close personalally’ of Mrs Thatcher…so any comment by him can be discounted as partisan.
Remarkable how much of what Straw said was given air time but so little to the Conservatives to answer such a slanderous lie from the contemptible Straw who is merrily making political hay from the deaths of so many.
I’m sure the BBC would try and pin 9/11 on Mr T if they thought they could get away with it.
But what i really don’t understand is how they seem to forget that without Mr T, Tone and Gordon would not have had the economy they so successfully destroyed over 13 years of miss rule?
Oh that’s right those 13 years never happened as far as Labor and the BBC would want us to believe
Mrs T, but you have to admit she didn’t pity fools ether.
Well . . . not really because Mrs T was forced out when the UK was in a recession. The economy in97 was down to Mr Major. They have praised Mrs Thatcher on numerous occasions, most notably in documentaries examining Britain in the 1970s and 80s – if you can find it, I suggest you look for the final episode of a recent BBC2 series called “the 70s”, that episode looking at 1977-1980. It is very supportive of Thatch in her successful attempts to bring the unions down to size and it’s absolutely scathing of the Labour govs of Wilson and Callaghan, in addition to the trade unions.
Aidan, what you say may have some merit. But if not for Mrs T doing all the hard work, Major could not have done what you say he did and the aforementioned Blair & Brown would not have had the legacy they did to squander so.
As for you suggestion the BBC are not anti-Thatcher you will forgive me for almost choking on my cornflakes at that! Here’s a link to the Biased-BBC archives for the key word anti-thatcher.
http://biasedbbc.tv/category/anti-thatcher/
And an peace by Stephen Glover on the 14 August 2007
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-475412/The-BBC-A-cauldron-hate-Margaret-Thatcher.html/
But who can for get the DG Mark Thompson admitting to the BBC anti thatcher bias in the telegraph on the 02 Sep 2010?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/7976318/BBC-was-biased-against-Thatcher-admits-Mark-Thompson.html
Now he may have used the past tense in his assessment of that bias, but we do know that the BBC is not a leopard known for changing it’s spots
ps: Can’t resist…
‘the BBC is not a leopard known for changing it’s spots’
If it is one known, at least via complaints for guarding a very ‘unique’ filing cabinet.
ps: Compliments to you, and Aiden, for engaging in debate in a manner that makes all sides worth reading.
Apols.. Aidan.
I think you’ll find we predicted this when the BBC put in a FOI request about Hillsborough. They were clearly hoping for some dirt to dish (much the same as with the money for Liverpool and other stories which were released after the 30 year rule which were very good for MT so the BBC spun it otherwise, I still have the screenshots.
I don’t think you need screenshots. Some of the bBBC stuff is still in their own archives.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16369447
and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16361170
They gave the latter the lurid headline Thatcher urged ‘let Liverpool decline’ after 1981 riots whereas the honest story would say ‘Thatcher rejected advice to consider letting Liverpool decline, and instead created a Minister for Merseyside and poured billions of pounds into reviving the city.’
Erm, you didn’t read the headline did you? It says “Thatcher urged”, implying that other people urged her to do something, not suggesting she favoured doing it at all.
Sounds like a simple lesson in grammar is called for, to understand the difference between the (active) ‘Thatcher urged …’ and the (passive) ‘Thatcher was urged …’.
But the bBBC headline writer knew what biased impression he wanted to give.
I do not think this is over egging it, but this is part of the commons statement by sufferer in chief Liverpool MP Steve Rotheram about Hillborough. ‘Despite the criticism levelled at us of a “self-pity city”, we were right that there was a deliberate attempt to shift the blame and instigate a cover-up at the very highest level. It is not about retribution—it is about responsibility.’ Look at the bit ‘the very highest level’; he can only mean Thatcher.
So after all the access, to all the papers, without the slightest shred of tangible evidence, he still tries and makes the inference!
Having skim-read the report last night it is highly critical of the Ambulance Service.
Best to just stay focused on the police though, eh?
Because the police were at fault for not letting the ambulances through on to the pitch?
I saw the opening footage as the “Independent” Panel presented their conclusions. A girl from the BBC asked leading questions obviously intended to incriminate Lady Thatcher. Sadly for her the panel could not oblige. I question the independence of the panel as some of the phrasing indicates that it had a predetermined destination in mind, and any obstacles would be fudged. For instance, expressing outrage that people’s alcohol levels were tested (this was a few years after Heysel, of course), the levels were described something like not excessive for a social occasion, or some such waffle. Have we really had the truth? I doubt it.
Agreed. There is an ironic mirror-image of the infamous ‘3:15 cut off’ in the scant regard given to events leading up to the exit gates being opened.
Under what circumstances did that crowd build up? So the turnstiles couldn’t process people quickly enough: but that can only be said in terms of the input at the outer side. I had a season ticket for my local club back in the days of terracing, and those entrances couldn’t process people quickly enough either. But we all queued up like civilised people.
Shortly after that there was a question from “Peter Marshall, BBC Newsnight”. He wanted to know about an apparent conflict between a statement made by Bernard Ingham and a statement made by Margaret Thatcher. Again, the panel disappointed him.
Agenda? What agenda?
I question the independence of the panel because all are from Liverpool. No bias there . . . (sarcasm).
LFC fans all claimed that there were no drunken fans outside the SWFC ground that afternoon.
The accounts of many residents of Hillsborough that day tell a very different story . . .
I shall remain impartial on this issue as the panel could have been too biased in LFC’s favour. There were 8 panellists, IIRC, so why weren’t they half Scousers, half Sheffielders?
Jack Straw was being quoted as tying in the police cover up to the Thatcher government’s wish to keep South Yorkshire police onside during the miner’s strike. You can see where this is going.
I have always taken the view that, whatever the police failings, the disaster couldn’t have happened without drunken fans who had no tickets piling in to an obviously full part of the ground. One has to remember that Heysel was fresh in the memory at the time and it was not an outlandish suggestion to make. However it seems that is not what occurred and that there was a huge cover up. That is utterly reprehensible.
But despite listening to the BBC news I am none the wiser as to what did make people continue pushing into an already full stadium. I would have thought a clear explanation as to the exact sequence of events was essential to give us a proper understanding of the whole situation, but for some reason amongst all the coverage I saw or heard it was never given.
I am the first to admit that I am already distrustful of anything the BBC chooses to tell me and that this may be colouring my outlook. But I can’t help wondering what we’re not being told here.
‘I can’t help wondering what we’re not being told here.’
Well said, in both the concession and the caution.
I am of a similar view on pretty much all the MSM is filtering out of the current ME crisis still.
There are a ton of totally-contradictory ‘facts’ on a truly febrile internet just now, not helped by most press and broadcast either saying nothing or rushing into PR management mode to protect their BFFs.
SKY booted a very promising TIm Marshall piece mid-flow to show the Duke and clothes horse of someshire possibly (it was via a mobile phone and a dial up modem) going in a building.
Jack Straw was being quoted as tying in the police cover up to the Thatcher government’s wish to keep South Yorkshire police onside during the miner’s strike. You can see where this is going.
But Hillsborough was in 1989 well after the miners strike …
Yes but Humphries (or whoever it was) pointed that out to Straw and asked him to justify his statement.
No! My mistake. He actually gave a grunt of agreement (missed it first time but noticed it just on PM; check it out).
Silly me.
I’m getting a bit bored with the beatification of all things Liverpool – they are no better & no worse than people from other cities. Hillborough was a tragedy – like Ibrox, Heysell & Bradford – and football fans of the time were not all blameless individuals – some probably were drunk – unlike the police who were doing their best (albeit unsucessfully to protect them).
I for one wish the BBC would revert back to Plan A of talking down the economy
It seems strange to me that the BBC and its fellow travellers on the nasty left can get away with having a go at Cameron every time he rightly attributes the country’s mess to the previous government. They really did leave a terrible mess and it’s only two years since they finished doing it – Mrs Thatcher has been gone for 22 years and they still keep blaming her for the country’s ills, even though she did more to fix things than any other politician in my lifetime.
To precis, the Conservatives are wrong for going back just two years but the nasty left are OK to go back 22.
It was made perfectly clear on BBC that Mrs T was fed the official line that it was drunks that caused the disaster but that she was under no disillusions after the Taylor report that the police had been at fault.
You can’t infer a bias when there isn’t one.
Subtract one like due a fumbling finger on the ipad. The BBC’s anti faatcher bias drips from every single editorial choice – from the choice of which facts to report and which to ignore, to the sequencing and juxtaposition of the sentences, to the choice of each individual word. Bias, bias bias.
I understand that descendants of Richard III are demanding a public inquiry.
I blame Thatcher.
Jack Straw has spouted off on R4 saying Thatcher shielded the Police from investigation. Straw who was in power when a false document issued to Parliament is allowed to take this country to WAR. Straw a leading traitor in my opinion.
Jack Straw is a nasty piece of work. He is trying to divert attention from his own role in the cover-up; he refused an inquiry when preented with evidence of the Police lies, whilst Home Secretary. He is using his friends and allies at the BBC to discredit Thatcher, when he should be answering questions. The man is a scumbag.
On balance, I thought Straw was one of the more decent Labour politicians – rising above the gutter politics favoured by his colleagues.
Until today.
Odious scumbag.
Still, his comments have the tacit approval of the ‘trusted’ BBC, and that’s surely what counts.
Jack Straw is not nice nor decent. One of his other unacceptable comments was “The Englsh are a race not worth saving.”
I would like to thank Alan for a well thought out post.
The problem with those at the BBC and the Left is that in their minds the blessed Margaret is to blame for everything… and so entrenched is their mindset they are incapable of reading any report etc that doesn’t have that interpretation.
A few of those of us on the left believe that all politicians of all parties are responsible for today’s ills.
Psychopaths are usually found in positions of power, MPs especially, and they are also found to have little remorse for those they are accountable to when they fudge up.
A few of those of us on the left believe that all politicians of all parties are responsible for today’s ills……however i expect the few of you on the left regard 1997 to 2010 as the ‘golden’ era
So now we have 96 Millie Dowlers to contend with!
The whole episode was a needless tragedy, but to try to get political capital out of it all twenty three later is truly despicable.
I`ll not give the litany of who is culpable-but to single out the police, given the climate at the time is wicked.
And to dare to link Thatcher to the miners and to Murdochs Sun in order to weave a noose to hang the “Right” is equally nasty, but totally predicatable.
The Councils of Liverpool and Sheffield…the MPs there-the FA, the Coroners, NHS, ambulance and police political interference-all have much more blame than a few panicking coppers with poor equipment, TV cameras to keep happy in the face of an unstable bunch of blokes trying to get into the game….and maybe we DO need to know how many of those would have been drunk, dangerous and without tickets-or are we not allowed to ask that anymore?
They`ll still be around-not dead, but oh so willing to blame the police for their contribution….any chance of the BBC trawling the raw archives to give us some evidence that I`m talking rot?…for I`m sure these things were being said by fans themselves at the time.
This does not clear individuals and systemic failures….but the fans of Liverpool need to own up to their part in all this.
The police were sober-and did not pile into a ground, late and cause those deaths.
For the likes of Straw to dare and blame the Tories-after Labours omerta and cover ups over the years- reveals how truly evil the Left have now become.
The Left can`t behind shrouds and cadavers forever….they are more responsible for such things as Hillsborough, but seek a Tory or a policeman to string up instead.
Will the BBC be showing Andy Burnham getting booed at Anfield 2009, as he explained why he`d not be bothering with it all….oh wait, he was an Everton fan-so that explains it!
Sheer scum, the left…
The blood alcohol chapter is worth reading. It confirms that 15% of the *victims* down the front were over the 2 pint drink driving limit – and I think it’s safe to assume an even higher proportion of the late arriving yobs at the back were even more pissed. But according to the report ‘it had not been established’ that this had any impact on the pushing (I kid you not. This is what they say). And in any event they appear to be saying that even if 100% of the crowd had been 5x over the limit – it would still be all the fault of the police.
They’re scousers. It’s always someone else’s fault.
Whatever our perceptions (and as a regular football fan, home and away, during the 70’s 80’s and 90’s I gained plenty), I was encouraged yesterday when the Inquiry Panel presented its report, believing that at last we could begin to move on. Although sceptical that the context for this tragedy was missing, I was prepared to accept that the people that had produced the report did so in good faith and were people of integrity.
I also thought that Cameron and, in particular, Parliament were at their best yesterday, emnity put to one side, some of the contributions from MPs were quite moving.
The solemnity, if you want to call it that, and the regard for the dead, lasted but a mere few seconds. The BBC made it’s intentions clear with their very first questions at the Panel’s Press Conference, with questions trying to tie Thatcher and News International to the tragedy, then quickly another BBC staffer (one of the 5 there, incidentally) followed suit.
As another contributor here said, the Panel were unwilling to play along. Straw, though, desperate to cover his tracks obliged them, and this morning, the ever disloyal David Mellor joined in.
So today, with yesterday’s political consensus gone, this morning’s Campell’s ‘show’ turned into a ‘get Thatcher’ fest; yesterday’s evidence put to one side, so that people could peddle their fantasies and conspiracy theories.
It’s not just ironic but disgusting that people, including the BBC, who now have evidence of the dishonest manipulation of the facts back in 1989 should in 2012 dishonstly manipulate and spin the outcome of the Panel’s report and in doing so, use the dead to further their own political ends and prejudices.
Interesting that as far as the BBC is treating things, the exact reverse seems, uniquely, at play with events elsewhere and across the pond.
I am not in the least bit surprised that the Labour party would try to blame anyone but themselves for anything. It is their modus operandi. The BBC jumping on the bandwagon though is no surprise either, they could not have their left wing credentials, which is aligned to the Labour party criticised.
I feel a complaint coming on and I suggest everyone who is disgusted with the BBC’s bias and complicity in the smearing of Maggie Thatcher should follow suit.
What is the betting they keep this story of ‘all Maggie’s fault’ going all day today and longer.
I trust we can now rely on the BBC to expose the corruption and lies behind the inquiries into the Climategate shenanigans at East Anglia Poly or, maybe, just push for a genuinely independent inquiry. Difficult I know since the BBC has been “impartially” assiduous in enabling the shysters perpetrating the CAGW fraud. I’m sure though that the BBC will be prepared to apologise profusely and sincerely for conveying lies to its listeners in the guise of “settled science” when its role in the fraud is officially recognised.
Not read the report-but Alan has done me the favour, I`d guess-so thanks.
This “Independent ” panel?…given that it was Burnham who left it to us in the dog days of the Godawful Labour Shambles of 2009…just how “independent” was it?
Was it MacPherson Independent?…Laming…Butler Sloss?..Stern?…Scarman?…or if truly “independent-would it be , say Hutton or Balen?
And I repeat-I`d be very surprised if those who caused this disaster had higher alcohol levels in their bloodstreams that the police who are being blamed for it.
I`m sure that most of the 96 were terribly wronged and slurred…but those who went into the ground late, drunk or without tickets(if indeed they did-and no-one really questioned that at the time did they?) are getting away with the lazy left scapegoating of panicking police who were out of their depth.
Wonder if any of them had form at Heysel?…and let me repeat-it is not the dead I`m thinking of here-but those self righteous hypocrites who want the police in the dock, when it wasn`t actually them that stormed the gates at Leppings Lane once the game had started.
Maybe we should ban football until we get some proper answers-after all if one life may yet be saved and all that?…what would the BBC say to that one?…given that Hansen etc are well paid to pad out their mindless uncritical permanent slew of footie?…
..and this agenda-free report wrt alcohol talks of… ‘objective evidence of a pattern of consumption modest for a leisure event’.
Yeah, whatevs.
I think we’ve all seen football fans, alcohol, and their ‘… consumption modest for a leisure event’.
Have to love these quaint turns of phrase.
‘Modest for a leisure event’. Context is all.
Is it coincidence SKY today ran a piece on how the Brits get bladdered around 4x more than all others on hols?
Many years ago a friend of mine was undergoing a medical examination (for his fitness to fly a plane), when asked about his drinking, he replied, oh, just a social drinker. Hmm, said the quack, what a good social life you must lead.
Back in the days when I still had a job and I used to attend union confrerence as a delegate..you should have seen the size of my cards vote..the loonie left used to like opening their speeches with “we brought down Thatcher” (which of course they did not) that was oover a decade ago. Seems the looney left fixation with Thatch hasn’t diminished.
I personally have grave doubts over this report I feel they have rewritten a cover up into a whitewash and no truth has or will be uncovered ! the family’s will never stop this and the city will never admit any of it’s fans were in any way at fault !
What is interesting though is the reaction on blogs and the web whole sites are refusing any debate and are hacking any none supportive comments I have never seen such censorship over a report?
Maybe only here there is some chance to get a little light on this !
You are not allowed to deviate from officially authorised thought.
Ever wonder how Nazi Germany started? You’re watching it right now.
The difference is than an internet forum is privately-owned property and the owners of that forum are allowed to implement whatever rules they wish, no law says they can’t do this.
Multiculturalism Has Destroyed The British Police”
by Paul Weston (2009).
http://paulweston101.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/multiculturalism-has-destroyed-british.html
As BBC-NUJ knows –
“England’s New Totalitarian Police Force”
http://britishfreedom.org/englands-new-totalitarian-police-force/
Back in the day when Mrs T was Prime Minister I was a fully paid up member of the Labour Party (God forgive me!) I detested her policies, but never wished the woman herself any harm. Most of us grow up and move on. Our opinions change and we see the world differently. Not so with these vile lefties it seems.
I heard one of these twerps on the radio likening Mrs Thatcher to Adolf Hitler!!! The Beeboid interviewing him didn’t seem particularly astonished by the comparison.
These people are just so despicable and devoid of normal human sentiment that I almost feel sorry for them.
Just tried a different tack by sending the BBC an ‘enquiry’ – as opposed to complaint – about any possible change of their attitude toward cover-ups in light of the Hillsborough report. This is the message upon submitting the enquiry:
‘We cannot answer all enquiries we receive, but if we can answer yours, we will reply as soon as we can.’
This alone proves my point, doesn’t it?
Not really. That’s the reply of an automated computer, not a BBC employee. Naturally as a corporation that receives a large amount of flak from the public, they will struggle to answer every reply. That’s why employers don’t reply to most unsuccessful job applicants, they are busy and don’t have the time.
or throw them in the bin
Aidan – My point is that I am obliged by law to pay for the BBC whether I want to receive their output or not, and they then reserve the right to choose whether or not to respond to my query/complaint; the very definition of unaccountability from an organization that has spent the last three days expressing extreme outrage at a so-called ‘establishment cover up’ and ‘conspiracy’.
This is hypocritical in the extreme.
I read in the Telegraph motoring section recently that around 400 children are killed on our roads each year. Surely this is a greater tradgedy than Hillsborough.
Not sure if it was 400 killed or injured but total road deaths were 1,901 for 2011.
“The Left hates Margaret Thatcher because she reminds them they are wrong about everything”
By DANIEL HANNAN
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2202406/The-Left-hates-Margaret-Thatcher-reminds-wrong-everything.html#ixzz26QoxgQfW
But . . . the BBC haven’t claimed that. The BBC are reporting that papers made at the time claim that. Note the bit I highlighted in asterisks.
Quote: “Margaret Thatcher had concerns that a report into the Hillsborough disaster constituted a ‘devastating criticism” of police, *newly released papers show*.'”
I would think it’s the makers of these papers (most likely South Yorkshire Police) that are the biased ones.
I wonder how many of those spouting off on phone ins etc have actually read any of the report, or just relied on emotive newspaper headlines? When I first heard the story I thought how come those “altered” documents had only come to light two decades on? It’s only when you read the small print you realise that the alterations were known about by previous inquiries who decided they didn’t matter. All this new inquiry has done is put a new spin on the same facts.
Nice to see the BBC giving so much coverage of the “cover ups” and “secret reports”. Perhaps they’ll be releasing Balen report soon???