Safe-Standing petition

[Svlad Cjelli]

Waste of time and money, won't happen.

If only the suffragettes or Gandhi had had the same advice - would have saved them a whole lot of hassle.

[West Stand Man]

Waste of time and money, won't happen.

If only the suffragettes or Gandhi had had the same advice - would have saved them a whole lot of hassle.

To confuse 2 hard fought campaigns for basic human rights with a desire to stand at football matches is puerile at the very best.

[Svlad Cjelli]

Waste of time and money, won't happen.

If only the suffragettes or Gandhi had had the same advice - would have saved them a whole lot of hassle.

To confuse 2 hard fought campaigns for basic human rights with a desire to stand at football matches is puerile at the very best.

I don't think so in the slightest, and I do chose my words with care. The similarity in this situation is one where people who believe in something that is important to them work hard, pool their resources and campaign to make change happen.

Regardless of what the cause is, a defeatist attitude of "don't bother, it's too hard, it's never going to happen" is pretty pathetic and devalues anything that people believe in.

[Red]

I support the cause but don't believe in online petitions so for that reason I'm out.

[Svlad Cjelli]

I support the cause but don't believe in online petitions so for that reason I'm out.

The petition is just one strand of a multi-threaded campiagn, to work on one particular argument - the fooball authorities saying that "there is no demand for safe-standing." Every safety officer and every match-going supporter knows otherwise, of course.

[Red]

Gr8 - well best of luck with it.

[Rex]

On the above note will safety officers offer support for this. Two sides having reasonable dialogue to achieve the same end. There is such a gulf of differing interpretations of the law at each club/ground.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

I support the cause but don't believe in online petitions so for that reason I'm out.

The petition is just one strand of a multi-threaded campiagn, to work on one particular argument - the fooball authorities saying that "there is no demand for safe-standing." Every safety officer and every match-going supporter knows otherwise, of course.

Sadly the football authorities don't give a toss about any opinion other than their own. The fact that they'll respond to a petition by saying there's no demand for standing speaks values.

Anything put to them will be met with a blank denial, avoiding all possible debate.

[Hampshire Royal]

I wonder what the families of the Hillsborough dead think about 'safe standing'.

[West Stand Man]

I don't think so in the slightest, and I do chose my words with care. The similarity in this situation is one where people who believe in something that is important to them work hard, pool their resources and campaign to make change happen.

Regardless of what the cause is, a defeatist attitude of "don't bother, it's too hard, it's never going to happen" is pretty pathetic and devalues anything that people believe in.

Which says a lot really. Principally that you have a warped value set if you can equate standing at football with the genuine human rights campaigns waged by those people.

[Svlad Cjelli]

I don't think so in the slightest, and I do chose my words with care. The similarity in this situation is one where people who believe in something that is important to them work hard, pool their resources and campaign to make change happen.

Regardless of what the cause is, a defeatist attitude of "don't bother, it's too hard, it's never going to happen" is pretty pathetic and devalues anything that people believe in.

Which says a lot really. Principally that you have a warped value set if you can equate standing at football with the genuine human rights campaigns waged by those people.

You're not understanding what I'm saving - whether deliberately or not I don't know.

The similarity I referred to is one "where people who believe in something that is important to them work hard, pool their resources and campaign to make change happen. " That is all. Read it carefully and read just that - don't try and add anything else to that simple statement and I hope you'll get the point I'm making, which is about belief and effort only, not actual subject of any campaign.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

I wonder what the families of the Hillsborough dead think about 'safe standing'.

...that it's a shame it didn't exist in 1989, perhaps.

"If it saves one life..." is an argument that bears no relation to reality.

Over 3000 die in car crashes in the UK each year, yet nobody suggests banning cars. 9000 die from alcohol-related illnesses...


And more importantly, people didn't die because they were stood up. They died because they were put in an overcrowded area which had no emergency exits.

When cars and planes etc crash, people don't just say "planes are dangerous, so we should ban them". They look at what caused the fatalities, and see what they can do to make sure those things can't happen again. We actually went a fair way towards that after 1989, pulling down fences and putting emergency exits gates in where terracing existed.

Terracing got banned because it was thought it would prevent crowd trouble, not because it was unsafe.

[Svlad Cjelli]

The simple and indisputable fact is that if there had been safe standing areas in the Leppings Lane End at Hillsborough on 15th April 1989 then nobody would have died.

[West Stand Man]

The simple and indisputable fact is that if there had been safe standing areas in the Leppings Lane End at Hillsborough on 15th April 1989 then nobody would have died.

At which point your whole case flounders in total. What un mitigated bulllshit - that is neither fact nor defensible.

[Svlad Cjelli]

The simple and indisputable fact is that if there had been safe standing areas in the Leppings Lane End at Hillsborough on 15th April 1989 then nobody would have died.

At which point your whole case flounders in total. What un mitigated bulllshit - that is neither fact nor defensible.

I beg to differ - but I do it not only without obseneity but with a willingnness to explain and with a knowledge of the subject.

Care to explain why you find that simple statement so difficult to agree with?

[West Stand Man]

The campaign for 'safe' standing is fine and dandy and I can understand why some people wish to join it. To justify it with imaginary 'facts' debases the balanced argument that is attempted to be put forward. There is no fact in your statement, it is an OPINION; there can be no fact because it didn't happen (ie no-one was involved in a crowd rush at Hillsborough into a 'safe' standing area).

[Royal Lady]

I think some people are thinking back to standing at Elm Park. It wouldn't be like that - it got to the point sometimes there where I dreaded us scoring because I knew me and my kids would be pushed forward with the surge from the back. This wouldn't happen in a "safe" standing area - you couldn't be pushed forwards for a start.

[Svlad Cjelli]

The campaign for 'safe' standing is fine and dandy and I can understand why some people wish to join it. To justify it with imaginary 'facts' debases the balanced argument that is attempted to be put forward. There is no fact in your statement, it is an OPINION; there can be no fact because it didn't happen (ie no-one was involved in a crowd rush at Hillsborough into a 'safe' standing area).

Are you having trouble with the distinction between a "standing area", which is you seem to be talking about, and a "safe-standing" area, which is whjat I'm talking about?

One of the essential definitions of a safe-standing area is that there are specific controls upon the numbers entering the enclosure - these are properly monitored and controlled, in exactly the same way that capacities in seated areas are monitored these days and following the Taylor Report.

Another of the essential definitions of a safe-standing area is that there are lateral barriers which prevent any forward surges - movement towards the front and back of the stands is only possible along the gangways.

And, of course, it goes without saying that there would be no fences enclosing the whole areas.

Taking these three factors into account, and considering the factors which led to the Hillsborough disaster, I feel perfectly happy to stand by my original statement.

[paultheroyal]

The simple and indisputable fact is that if there had been safe standing areas in the Leppings Lane End at Hillsborough on 15th April 1989 then nobody would have died.

Also a fact that if the terracing was full of seats like now then no-one would of died.

[Jerry St Clair]

The simple and indisputable fact is that if there had been safe standing areas in the Leppings Lane End at Hillsborough on 15th April 1989 then nobody would have died.

Also a fact that if the terracing was full of seats like now then no-one would of died.

Simplistic and misleading.

You don't, of course, just mean seats. By implication you're saying that there would be controlled entry, effective stewarding, allocated areas for each spectator, well-defined gangways, emergency exits and and no perimeter fences.

All of which you'd also get with a safe standing area.