Huguenot

Reasons to keep a shotgun in the house #01 Use it to sort out minor domestic disagreements: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/sep/16/man-shotgun-injured-police-shootout

I don't mind the f-bomb, but I think your 'f* off back to where they came from' was shameful.

Had to look up tombstoning.

'Currently in talks with...' Hahaha The Tom Mickelwright butcher's summit. Days of heavy duty negotiations ahead I imagine. If Rod just tells you to go and look at the website, I suspect those 'talks' are pretty limited ;-)

Sure Atticus, except that it's 3 years and 4 pages later, so I really can't remember what my exact train of thought was. You can't remember the specific details of conversations 3 years ago, so I'm sure you don't expect me to. More likely you're picking a fight. The phrase 'what exactly do you mean by...' is a traditional British idiom used to prelude outrage and followed by fury. You know that mate. The question was what exactly justice is, what does it look like? I put forward one suggestion out of many. Money doesn't have to be compensation, it could also be punishment fines. It is an accepted public demonstration of culpability. Justice means many things to many people: an apology, vengeance, retribution, humiliation, an eye for an eye... For some people it's money.

Mick Mac, Ferdinand won't shake hands with someone his brother racially abused? Was there something else apart from that?

You don't need to out any data on there to have an iCloud account. The reason these guys grab phones that are in use s to ensure the handset lock isn't on. They then immediately turn off password and turn off Find My iPhone

Haha Ren, the term is 'grossly' offensive, and I'm afraid getting lampooned on an internet forum for gunslinging doesn't even touch the sides on that. You may be unfamiliar with libel, but it requires an untrue damaging claim to be made about an individual and presented as fact. It doesn't apply to criticisms or parodies of anonymous online personalities. In particular it doesn't apply to satire or humour. You've just got to stop this silly outrage and threats when people don't agree with you. You or your partner pick arguments with people in pubs and suggest they should be hung from lamposts, you think burglars should be shot, and now you're threatening on websites. This is a pattern of aggression. Just think how you would respond if someone had threatened to lynch you from a lampost, or threatened to shoot you. THAT is subject to Section 127, but the guys who are doing it are you and your other half. Yet you are 'revolted' by people who do nothing more than take the piss out of you. Think about that. You've got to stop this. It's an illness.

DaverR... " you can't ignore the fact that there were specific acts and decisions that can be traced to a direct causative link to the deaths of 96 human beings." Sure thing, I agree, and where criminal actions can be identified they should be prosecuted. I'm simply trying to remind people that there is a different, less simplistic approach to this event that would be more just. Take two scenarios: In one, villagers are roundly condemned, subject to witch hunts and public hate for specific acts and decisions that lead to the death of a shepherd boy from a wolf attack. In the other we are reminded that this boy has cried wolf 50 times as an attention seeking exercise, and is consequently the real architect of his own misfortune. In the blind tribal binary world of some Liverpool fans, many of whom weren't even born when this event took place, there is only one interpretation - that the authorities deliberately manufactured a series of events to murder innocent angels, that they deliberately prevented access to emergency services to murder some more, and then laughed as they deceived the public about what really took place. In a more likely world, a series of mistakes were made in good faith, compounded by an incorrect analysis of the situation, and faced with a entirely unique and undreamt of unfolding tragedy everything went to shit. Frankly I wish you would stop suggesting that I deny this tragedy or the mistakes that were made. I'm simply trying to ratchet down the ridiculous claims being made about faultless fans and demonic authorities.

JB, I'm guessing he didn't talk about fossil fuels, sustainable energy, public transport and car usage did he? He talked about stopping people eating meat. He probably talked about ways he could 'force' people not to eat meat by trying to stop local retailers providing it on certain days. That's because when he can't persuade people of the benefits of his approach, he tries to enforce cooperation.

Did you really just drag up a conversation from over 3 years ago to pick a fight?

I'm sorry Quids, I just don't buy into the fans were angels narrative any more than I buy into the fans were devils narrative. The truth is much messier. Re. Atticus statement and relevant to yours, I recognise the mistakes and the cover up and have done for years. There is no revelation here as I didn't buy into the original Sun version of events, and frankly the original inquest blamed mismanagement as well. I feel no need to dwell on this as it's a given. That a cover up amongst the police took place is no revelation either. This was of its era, it wasn't the first and it won't be the last. Those who are criminally liable should be prosecuted. My point is this: This issue will not and cannot be reconciled until both sides realise that this tragedy was a long time coming and it was based in the human condition, the history of conflict between football fans and the police and society at large, the the football industry abdicating responsibility for it's fans in a climate of fear. The fans themselves, through incidents like Heysel, share the blame for this scenario, and they share the blame for the tragedy. Like truth and reconciliation in South Africa, people will only be able to move on when they recognise that the polarised simplistic story which has been created and is currently being peddled by the footballing tribe is neither accurate nor useful.

Is that 'fistpost' ?

You never know.

Well the tomato has very comparable specific heat as your hand or mouth. So if you transferred the heat of a 100g tomato at 400 degrees F to 50g worth of hand (or 50g of your tongue and inside cheek) at a body temperature of 100 degrees F, then you're likely to find an equilibrium at around 300 degrees F for both. The consequences of superheating your hand or mouth to 300 degrees F doesn't bear contemplation, so please do not try at home. http://rlv.zcache.co.uk/angry_rotten_tomato_cartoon_character_photosculpture-p153163510684721079env3d_216.jpg

If it's in the centre of London the congestion charging cameras should be able to provide a record of your movements, and see where it conflicts with a clone car. Where was the incident alleged to have taken place? Were you actaully there?

I think you've misunderstood Parkdrive. I have no doubts about the culpability of the authorities. I'm simply pointing out that a flipside to this tragic narrative has been created in some communities, where Liverpool angels were deliberately murdered by callous psychopaths of the establishment. It is as implausible as the original insistence that the Liverpool fans murdered each other for economic benefit and defecated on the corpses. At a distance of over 20 years we really should be able to point this out without the irrationally simplistic approach of us vs. them. Tragedies like these are many years in the making, and are full of untold complexity and human frailty. As many have pointed out, if there was criminal behaviour the perpetrators should be brought to book.

The real one? This was a very real tragedy for the family and immediate relatives of the deceased. I feel desperately sad for them. The rest of the episode is an mythological construct that feeds off itself.

The foil packs? There's good reason for that to do with thermal conductivity and mass.... Here's a good example that someone had already worked out: The specific heat of water is 4.184 Joules per gram-degree C (or K) and aluminum is .91 Joules per gram-degree C. That means that a gram of foil takes one fourth as much energy as a gram of water to heat up (or one fourth as much must be removed for it to cool off one degree). So, if we assume that the foil WASN'T giving off heat through radiation or conductivity with the air, you take a ball of foil out of the oven with your bare hand. If the ball is made of 2 square feet of foil, it will have a mass of about 8 grams. 330 deg F diff (180 deg K) by 8 is 1466. 1466 divided by (4.184/.91) gives you 385 gram/degrees. That 385 is the number of gram-degrees that would be absorbed by your hand. Assuming the surface of your hand is mostly water, and you put 50 grams of hand water in contact with the ball, it would raise that 50 grams of water ~8 degrees C, which is 14 degrees F. So, even if you come into contact with all 2 square feet of foil at once, and it hadn't radiated or conducted any heat away to the air so it's still at 400 degrees F, the surface of your hand would only be raised 14 degrees F, a long way from a burn. Once you take into account radiation, conduction by the air, and the miniscule area of the foil that you actually touch, it's not odd that it doesn't feel warm. In other words the foil is just too light, and has too high a thermal conductivity, to offer anything to your rather massive thermally inert hand. The tomato, with all that water in, is another issue entirely.

Football fans regularly fought with police officers, people on the terraces regularly urinated either where they stood or into other people's pockets for a laugh, and thieves were rife. I doubt that Liverpool supporters were any different, nor would they have been angels during the run up to that match. We all saw on television during last year's riots sveral grown men ransack the property of a 20 year old Malaysian student who had a broken jaw and was heavily bleeding. People don't suddenly change their nature when they see an opportunity to exploit a weakness - what chances there was even one guy in the crowd who took a similar approach? Yes The Sun tried to sell newspapers and fabricated or heavily embellished the tales of witnesses. Liverpool fans weren't the only ones to suffer this treatment. Don't buy the Sun? What about the Mail or the Mirror? Cut from the same cloth. The heavily polarised approach of Liverpool supporters provides their own tightly edited, rose-tinted and implausible version of events that appears nearly as distanced from the truth as that of the Sun.

I don't think the issue is closure, empathy or support. The victims and their immediate relatives deserve and receive their dues. An entire community of 1.5 million people beating their chests for over 20 years on the grounds that they knew someone who knew someone before they were born? I struggle to see the proportionality. The Hillsborough disaster was of its era, the mistakes were inevitable given the history of football violence, the cover up was hardly the first and won't be the last in the history of public service. Liverpool supporters 'smeared'? Possibly - more likely existing popular memes were amplified. Liverpool fans certainly weren't all angels, as with every other team. It wasn't the first time they'd been involved in tragic crowd disturbances that they blamed on others. It's not surprising they were accused of crying wolf. Liverpool a victim of dishonesty and lies from The Sun? Join the other millions who suffer at their hands. It's nothing special. The wisest thing given the history and circumstances would be an exercise in truth and reconciliation. Somehow I can't see many Liverpudlians being satisfied with that.

The examiner is basically a blogging community where contributors get paid by the page-view. Hence they're notorious for massively over hyped stories with dubious or incorrect headlines. I think this is a non-story. It does enable people who don't agree with US embargoes to transact oil in yuan (in addition to many other currencies) rather than dollars to avoid channeling payments through US banks where they may be frozen. They've been doing this for years though, so what's new?

I'm not sure that anything I read in the report was a revelation.

Exactly RosieH. We don't govern by plebiscite (referendum) in the UK, but by representative democracy. An MP's role is not to vote according to the wishes of the constituents, but to lay out a manifesto and if elected to deliver on it. As Edmund Burke might say, a representative should never sacrifice his judgement to the opinion of the constituency. This is why delivering on manifesto commitments is so important in the UK. If a government fails to deliver on a manifesto pledge then they have committed one of the most egregious sins in modern democracy.

Totally agree Otta. The tragedy was a product of its era.