Join NowAfter further review....
Birthday Wishes From Steven Cohen
Posted 20 Aug 2009 at 05:24 PM by Dan Loney
Updated 20 Aug 2009 at 08:14 PM by Dan Loney (Misspelled "Pacifica," the left-wing listener supported radio site whose mention in this post adds absolutely nothing to my point. There's a lesson in there, somewhere)
Updated 20 Aug 2009 at 08:14 PM by Dan Loney (Misspelled "Pacifica," the left-wing listener supported radio site whose mention in this post adds absolutely nothing to my point. There's a lesson in there, somewhere)
(This is a long one, gang. Say I warned you not, do not.)
A few weeks ago, I said that Steven Cohen's claims of intimidation were completely frivolous and fanciful. I said he was only making those claims in order to engender sympathy from the misinformed and/or gullible. I said if there really were this kind of threats, anything resembling this kind of horrible behavior, it would be a matter for law enforcement. And I challenged those allegedly on the receiving end of those threats to show that they did, in fact, contact the authorities.
Today, I learned I was wrong. It turns out that there is an organized campaign of intimidation arising out of the boycott of Steven Cohen. I was completely wrong to say what I did, and I am frankly amazed that anyone would stoop to these low, despicable tactics. I made a very wrong assumption, and I apologize.
...sure, the intimidation is coming from Cohen, but wrong is wrong.
It wasn't immediately obvious from Ginge's post, but there was no way Cohen would have known the name of Tony in New Mexico's wife without actively researching that information. Which does make this like a mobster saying "Best of luck to you, your flammable business, and your tiny children as they play on those deathtrap swings on the playground at the corner of Elm and Pine Street at 2:30 this afternoon."
Well, I for one have gotten the message. You have convinced me, Steven. I will stop the boycott of Fox Football Fone-in as of two weeks ago. Har har har har har.
Relive with me some of the highlights from the Early Years of the Steven Cohen Boycott.
Forty-five minutes! into this interview with Steven Cohen on April 24 by Kartik Krishnaiyer:
The amusing thing about this? Kartik runs a sister site to Harris' EPL Talk. Proving Harris has the patience of a ********ing saint - if I read a site that publishes forty-five paragraphs of slander towards me, I de-link the ********er. I sure as hell don't give him the DLSIA Seal of Approval.
Cohen kept up the offensive, taking it to the mainstream. In this unfortunate interview with the LA Daily News on May 11, Cohen warmed to the terrorist theme.
If I can jump in again here.
Since when is hating Liverpool a job?
I mean, forget that Cohen said his life was at stake - he was at best drama queening, at worst and most likely drama lying. Dude was in the Army, presumably he can take care of himself against guys hiding behind a keyboard. (Or against figments of his imagination. But that's a different story.)
"What do you do for a living, Steven?"
"Well, I think Liverpool fans did Hillsborough. So I ask businesses to give me money so I can say it on satellite radio."
Now, I'm well aware that as we speak, professional radio employs people who believed that Bill Clinton or George W. Bush (or both) would cancel elections and declare martial law. Which is the point - it's a line of work that isn't about the strength or weakness of opinion. It's about the strength or weakness of sponsors and listeners. If a corporation or two thought that he could sell radios or foot powder, the guy in Berkeley who thought Stephen King killed John Lennon would be in two hundred AM markets.
Since it's been that way from about twenty seconds after Marconi, it's a tad silly for Cohen to claim his livelihood is at stake. It's at stake every time he sat down behind a microphone. It's a free market issue, not a First Amendment issue.
And there's not a damn thing preventing Cohen from going the PBS/Pacifica/televangelist route - well, we'll get to that, actually.
Anyway, we've now established that the boycotters are terrorists, and that they don't have the eggs to go on Cohen's show and defend his views.
Jack Bell gave Cohen a credulous chance to expand on this theme in his New York Times Goal! blog interview, May 14:
I think we need to update that Macbeth line, or at least have a modified Godwin's Law for it. Because since about 1947 or so, anyone who has quoted the "methinks" line as an accusation has invariably, always, in every case been proven wrong, and the protesting lady turns out to be protesting for very good reason.
But that's not what really struck me. Christopher Harris was a coward for not going on World Soccer Daily. Meanwhile, Steven Cohen was prudent for not going on radio shows in the UK, because he wouldn't have gotten a fair shake. As if Harris was going to get the kind of loving attention Krishnaiyer gave to Cohen. And as if Cohen himself didn't have a platform to advance his views without worry of unfair shaking.
However, you had to have a certain admiration for Cohen, holding out against terrorists and conspiracy no matter what the price...at least, for another four days or so, untilMay 18:
It never fails to amuse me that Cohen apologized to terrorists.
"To an event from April 1989." You know what, forget the putting the crap to bed line, and the scrunching up the paper bit. "An event from 1989" just showed how insincere and weaselly the whole exercise was. Hm, did he mean Tiananmen Square?
The whole statement was well publicized, and the vast majority of it was self-promotion. It's no longer on the World Soccer Daily site, in favor of its sequel...but we'll get to that.*
Cohen and his loathsome remora, Kenny Hassan, immediately followed up with some tedious comedy at the expense of the boycott's organizers. They've done so now and again since this first apology.**
Which is odd, considering that if you believe Cohen, the boycott didn't even work. Here was a wacky interview from June, where, among other things, Steven blamed LFC itself for the boycott:
Ironically, in this interview, Cohen quoted the Taylor Report for his purpose:
This was a vaguely accurate restatement of Paragraph 269 of the Final Report***:
The Interim Taylor Report addressed this in slightly more specific detail, and it doesn't help Cohen's case, or even his claim to have read the report. These excerpts are lengthy, all the more amazing that Cohen missed them.
But loyal supporters of Cohen rallied to his defense. Through the tireless efforts of Nick Iannone, they made it over 7% of the way to their goal on an online petition site.
A fundraising site set up by Iannone hit its target and then some - over $6,000 raised for a show that wasn't in financial trouble.
Sure, Iannone had a little trouble with these sites. He sort of had a small problem getting the text just right, so he enlisted the help of a friend.
Still not entirely sure "credit" was the word Iannone was groping for. Largely because one of the corrected drafts promised a portion of the funds raised would go to the Hillsborough Justice Campaign.
That would be the Hillsborough Justice Campaign:
One hesitates to throw around terms like "fraud" and "crime," but there are very few polite terms for raising money under false pretenses. At least the promise in this case was so wonderfully implausible that I doubt anyone was fooled.
Nevertheless, thanks to this outpouring of support in reaction to Cohen's media offensive, Cohen went from success to success, turning a small boycott into public censure from Four Four Two, Heineken, Liverpool FC and Chelsea, and permanently burying the theory that there's no such thing as bad publicity.
Naturally, by the time July rolled around, in an attempt to bring an end to a boycott that was having no effect on him, he put out another statement on July 16th.
You might have missed it - I certainly did. I don't know if he read it on the air. The first paragraph was promoting his show. The second paragraph called the boycotters racist. The third paragraph compared his scrunching up the apology as comedy in the style of Keith Olbermann and David Letterman. The fourth paragraph tried to claim his earlier Hillsborough statements were made in good faith. The fifth paragraph tries the "ticketless fans were not helpful" trope again, but says that Cohen did make a closer reading of the Taylor Report and decided, well, reasonable minds could differ. The sixth paragraph tried once again to make people think he wasn't just talking about Liverpool, despite the "milking the tragedy joke." The seventh paragraph claims the boycott is harming innocents, and apparently is no longer of "minimal effect," despite the fundraiser. The eighth paragraph calls the boycott organizers enablers of racism. The ninth paragraph applauds Cohen for being able to rise above hate, and invites Liverpool to do the same. The tenth paragraph promises never to mention the subject again, and promotes the show's fearless discussion of any topic.
Amazingly enough, this second statement didn't end the boycott. Go figure.
If we take Cohen at his word, he has twice apologized to racist terrorists. To Cohen's credit, they weren't particularly believeable apologies. But still.
So some might ask, why continue the boycott? Well, they're racist terrorists, aren't they? In all seriousness, once that card has been played, there really is no turning back. And if I'm calling out, by name, the people involved in the boycott, I shouldn't be astounded that those people take it personally.
I think it's fair to say that Cohen is trying to make the bare minimum required to end the boycott, short of actually apologizing. It's fair to say that the boycotters won't be satisfied until Cohen is no longer on the air, or at least no longer sponsored by anyone. We can agree or disagree with who is right, but I don't think there's much room to dispute the two views, given their premises. Cohen thinks (or at least, is saying out loud) he's standing up to racist terrorists. (Never mind the apologies.) The Liverpool supporters think they're dealing with a serial liar. Why would either one trust the other at this point? You'd have to be deluded.
So, being deluded, Cohen enlisted the help of a professor of political science at UCLA named Mark Sawyer, in hopes of bringing an end to our long national nightmare.
The one tiny problem with this approach is that Sawyer may have been the single least suitable person for this purpose in the entire English--speaking world. Read
this, and marvel at who they give tenure to these days. Might as well use my degree as a paper airplane.
Anyhoo, Sawyer's mediation ended up about as effectively as a block of sodium in a high school toilet, thanks perhaps partially to Cohen reading some hate mail on his show on July 19:
Thank goodness Professor Sawyer was there to smooth over ruffled feathers.
Is now a good time to recall that Tony in New Mexico managed to get an FBI file number?
"You're a bunch of racists. Can we work this out?"
For those of you keeping track, the number of nefarious racist terrorists targeting Steven Cohen keeps growing. It's almost as if it wasn't all Christopher Harris at EPL Talk after all.
The story is still ongoing, which means there might be yet more comedy to unfold. By Cohen's own measure, he doesn't have enough supporters or listeners willing to stand by him. His apologies don't approach the sincerity of his accusations, for what should be obvious reasons. And now, he's adopting the tactics he condemns in others.
If Cohen survives this, it will be despite his very best efforts at self-destruction. If you can't handle the heat, don't set yourself on fire.
*Anyone else remember "Norm," starring Norm Macdonald? Unappreciated masterpiece. Anyway, there's a bit where Norm tries to apologize for having bet on hockey games. Problem was, years earlier, he had made this statement (I apologize for the paraphrase):
"I'm not sorry. I'm glad I did it. I'd do it again. I'll never apologize. If I ever do apologize, I'm lying. And if I ever say that I've seen the error of my ways, I'm lying about that too. And if I ever try to say that I am sincere about my apology and I was lying to you now? I'm lying."
**Kenny Hassan, of whose existence I had been blissfully unaware before all this, deserves an order of magnitude more scorn than he has gotten. Suffice to say that American soccer has finally found the Alan Colmes it has been desperately not looking for.
***"Interim Report" and "Final Report" are misnomers; the first was about Hillsborough specifically, the final was about the state of football in England.
A few weeks ago, I said that Steven Cohen's claims of intimidation were completely frivolous and fanciful. I said he was only making those claims in order to engender sympathy from the misinformed and/or gullible. I said if there really were this kind of threats, anything resembling this kind of horrible behavior, it would be a matter for law enforcement. And I challenged those allegedly on the receiving end of those threats to show that they did, in fact, contact the authorities.
Today, I learned I was wrong. It turns out that there is an organized campaign of intimidation arising out of the boycott of Steven Cohen. I was completely wrong to say what I did, and I am frankly amazed that anyone would stoop to these low, despicable tactics. I made a very wrong assumption, and I apologize.
...sure, the intimidation is coming from Cohen, but wrong is wrong.
Quote:
Tony's involvement inevitably drew the attention of Steven Cohen and on the May 28th, 2009 edition of World Soccer Daily, the beginning of what Tony feels are intimidation tactics against him began. As co-host Kenny Hassan brags about giving away a Vespa scooter he says, "...whilst Tony New Mexico stays at the Hampton inn in Las Vegas, we know where to find you" Steven Cohen then chips in "Yes indeed, we do know where to find you." It would not end there.
July 17th, 2009. As Cohen does a piece with a sponsor, he gives out Tony's full name and the town in which he lives. "Antony Ananins of Tyrone, New Mexico"
Finally yesterday, August 19th, Tony received an email from Cohen that include wishing his wife Bev a happy birthday. A seemingly mundane statement, but Tony felt otherwise.
These three incidents proved to Tony that Cohen was attempting to intimidate him by making it clear that he (Cohen) had personal information about not only Tony, but his family. Statements against an individuals involved in a emotional campaign are one thing, but when one's family members become involved then people begin to react differently.
In addition to these incidents with Cohen directly, Tony has dealt with a more more disturbing situation as a result of his effort. He has received various death threats via e-mail over the past three months, including one just this week. Sent from an individual identifying himself as Frank Mai (dehumanvacuum@.com), the e-mail stated simply "Give up the boycott or pay the price". This email and the email from Cohen mentioning Tony's wife were the last straw and he decided to contact the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
July 17th, 2009. As Cohen does a piece with a sponsor, he gives out Tony's full name and the town in which he lives. "Antony Ananins of Tyrone, New Mexico"
Finally yesterday, August 19th, Tony received an email from Cohen that include wishing his wife Bev a happy birthday. A seemingly mundane statement, but Tony felt otherwise.
These three incidents proved to Tony that Cohen was attempting to intimidate him by making it clear that he (Cohen) had personal information about not only Tony, but his family. Statements against an individuals involved in a emotional campaign are one thing, but when one's family members become involved then people begin to react differently.
In addition to these incidents with Cohen directly, Tony has dealt with a more more disturbing situation as a result of his effort. He has received various death threats via e-mail over the past three months, including one just this week. Sent from an individual identifying himself as Frank Mai (dehumanvacuum@.com), the e-mail stated simply "Give up the boycott or pay the price". This email and the email from Cohen mentioning Tony's wife were the last straw and he decided to contact the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Well, I for one have gotten the message. You have convinced me, Steven. I will stop the boycott of Fox Football Fone-in as of two weeks ago. Har har har har har.
Relive with me some of the highlights from the Early Years of the Steven Cohen Boycott.
Forty-five minutes! into this interview with Steven Cohen on April 24 by Kartik Krishnaiyer:
Quote:
COHEN: The story that was posted by EPL Talk today and Christopher Harris, was disingenuous. I think he is highly irresponsible, and I think to a degree he is a bit of a coward....The net result of what he's done, and then he followed it up today with a story of how I refused to apologize - well, I don't think I have anything to apologize for. I'm entitled to my opinion. I live in the United States of America, where I'm protected by the First Amendment, and I have a radio show in which I can express my opinion if I so choose. What I do think Christopher needs to think long and hard about is the fact that in the last three days, I have had numerous death threats. I have had anti-Semitic slurs sent my way. I have had threats of my house being burnt down. And I have had threats of my stepchildren-to-be being kidnapped. If he can live with that, then he's...he's...he's some kind of human being. But I can't live with that, and he needs to take that on board. The people who I am talking about, who have made sent me these e-mails, and made these threats of kidnapping and murder and death and stabbing me and shooting me with a gun and saying they're coming to LA to beat the crap out of me - who have contacted our sponsors and who have contacted our correspondents - if these people lived in Afghanistan and Pakistan, we would call them terrorists. And that's a fact. So you draw your own conclusions as to what should be done. This is the United States of America. We are protected by the First Amendment, and I take my right to exercise my First Amendment rights. I recognize that this is a sensitive issue. That doesn't discount the fact that I should be able to talk about it.
KRISHNAIYER: And just to reiterate, you have gotten death threats and you've gotten other threats of bodily harm, from, presumably, Liverpool fans.
COHEN: Well, I don't know where they're coming from. I say largely, I think they're coming from Liverpool. Or the UK."
KRISHNAIYER: And just to reiterate, you have gotten death threats and you've gotten other threats of bodily harm, from, presumably, Liverpool fans.
COHEN: Well, I don't know where they're coming from. I say largely, I think they're coming from Liverpool. Or the UK."
Cohen kept up the offensive, taking it to the mainstream. In this unfortunate interview with the LA Daily News on May 11, Cohen warmed to the terrorist theme.
Quote:
I've seen the Taliban less defensive....If this was being done in Afghanistan or Pakistan, we'd call these people terrorists. A lot of them are little cowards hiding behind their computers.
(But) I feel my life and my livelihood is at stake.
(But) I feel my life and my livelihood is at stake.
Since when is hating Liverpool a job?
I mean, forget that Cohen said his life was at stake - he was at best drama queening, at worst and most likely drama lying. Dude was in the Army, presumably he can take care of himself against guys hiding behind a keyboard. (Or against figments of his imagination. But that's a different story.)
"What do you do for a living, Steven?"
"Well, I think Liverpool fans did Hillsborough. So I ask businesses to give me money so I can say it on satellite radio."
Now, I'm well aware that as we speak, professional radio employs people who believed that Bill Clinton or George W. Bush (or both) would cancel elections and declare martial law. Which is the point - it's a line of work that isn't about the strength or weakness of opinion. It's about the strength or weakness of sponsors and listeners. If a corporation or two thought that he could sell radios or foot powder, the guy in Berkeley who thought Stephen King killed John Lennon would be in two hundred AM markets.
Since it's been that way from about twenty seconds after Marconi, it's a tad silly for Cohen to claim his livelihood is at stake. It's at stake every time he sat down behind a microphone. It's a free market issue, not a First Amendment issue.
And there's not a damn thing preventing Cohen from going the PBS/Pacifica/televangelist route - well, we'll get to that, actually.
Anyway, we've now established that the boycotters are terrorists, and that they don't have the eggs to go on Cohen's show and defend his views.
Jack Bell gave Cohen a credulous chance to expand on this theme in his New York Times Goal! blog interview, May 14:
Quote:
I am now getting requests from the U.K. media for interviews which I won’t do because there is no chance of a fair shake. I expressed an opinion, I stand by it. I believe that there was some shared responsibility between the F.A., the police, the city of Sheffield and, I believe, the fans. There is also a sense that what I am saying, in their minds, is that with evil in their hearts fans without tickets went down there that day. It is not what I have said. But how do 9,000 to 10,000 fans go to a game and have 96 tragically perish and it be everybody else’s fault? It’s just part of the culture, bunking into games.
...
My issue is that we live in a country where we are entitled to free speech and these people are engaged in terror tactics...For me, it brings up the quote from “Macbeth”: ‘The lady doth protest too much, methinks.’ It makes you wonder … do they feel guilty?
...
My issue is that we live in a country where we are entitled to free speech and these people are engaged in terror tactics...For me, it brings up the quote from “Macbeth”: ‘The lady doth protest too much, methinks.’ It makes you wonder … do they feel guilty?
But that's not what really struck me. Christopher Harris was a coward for not going on World Soccer Daily. Meanwhile, Steven Cohen was prudent for not going on radio shows in the UK, because he wouldn't have gotten a fair shake. As if Harris was going to get the kind of loving attention Krishnaiyer gave to Cohen. And as if Cohen himself didn't have a platform to advance his views without worry of unfair shaking.
However, you had to have a certain admiration for Cohen, holding out against terrorists and conspiracy no matter what the price...at least, for another four days or so, untilMay 18:
Quote:
Let's put this crap to bed.
First of all I would like to apologize for comments made on World Soccer Daily on Monday April 13th that referred back to an event from April 1989. My apology is directed at any and all people who’s feelings have been hurt and people who have had awful memories and scars re-opened. The apology is heartfelt, genuine and sincere.
There are some I suspect who will look at this apology with a cynical eye and of course you are entitled to see it as you like.
First of all I would like to apologize for comments made on World Soccer Daily on Monday April 13th that referred back to an event from April 1989. My apology is directed at any and all people who’s feelings have been hurt and people who have had awful memories and scars re-opened. The apology is heartfelt, genuine and sincere.
There are some I suspect who will look at this apology with a cynical eye and of course you are entitled to see it as you like.
"To an event from April 1989." You know what, forget the putting the crap to bed line, and the scrunching up the paper bit. "An event from 1989" just showed how insincere and weaselly the whole exercise was. Hm, did he mean Tiananmen Square?
The whole statement was well publicized, and the vast majority of it was self-promotion. It's no longer on the World Soccer Daily site, in favor of its sequel...but we'll get to that.*
Cohen and his loathsome remora, Kenny Hassan, immediately followed up with some tedious comedy at the expense of the boycott's organizers. They've done so now and again since this first apology.**
Which is odd, considering that if you believe Cohen, the boycott didn't even work. Here was a wacky interview from June, where, among other things, Steven blamed LFC itself for the boycott:
Quote:
BNET: What has been the effect of the advertiser boycott of your shows?
SC: There are some companies that couldn’t take the heat from the Liverpool supporters’ groups. They frightened them. They intimidated them. I think some of them are going to be found wanting when it comes to interfering with third-party contracts. We’ve lost some clients, as I think you would in this situation. The financial loss has been absolutely minimal, I will tell you that.
....
I think [Tom] Hicks and [George] Gillette [Liverpool's owners] are going to be asked to account for this because at the end of the day this was a campaign that was approved of by Liverpool F.C. … With all that’s going in Iran and North Korea this does seem unbelievably petty to me.
SC: There are some companies that couldn’t take the heat from the Liverpool supporters’ groups. They frightened them. They intimidated them. I think some of them are going to be found wanting when it comes to interfering with third-party contracts. We’ve lost some clients, as I think you would in this situation. The financial loss has been absolutely minimal, I will tell you that.
....
I think [Tom] Hicks and [George] Gillette [Liverpool's owners] are going to be asked to account for this because at the end of the day this was a campaign that was approved of by Liverpool F.C. … With all that’s going in Iran and North Korea this does seem unbelievably petty to me.
Quote:
SC: I don’t think they want to accept it. I think to a degree the groups are trying to show their power. They’re trying to show how powerful they can be. So many people have asked me, Have you ever read the Taylor Report [the official government inquiry into Hillsborough]? Yeah, I have.
BNET: The main beef the Liverpool fans have with you is whether the deaths at Hillsborough were caused by unticketed fans trying to get into the stadium. The Taylor Report says the amount of unticketed fans was negligible. Why not just issue a correction, like a newspaper would, and be done with the issue? [We go into a long discussion of exactly what the Taylor Report does and does not say. Cohen reads from it verbatim]:
SC: “One problem which creates difficulties for the police is the arrival of would-be spectators without tickets at an all-ticket match. While while there were not a large body of those, there were undoubtedly some. Those people who try to get in without tickets do not help the situation.”
BNET: The main beef the Liverpool fans have with you is whether the deaths at Hillsborough were caused by unticketed fans trying to get into the stadium. The Taylor Report says the amount of unticketed fans was negligible. Why not just issue a correction, like a newspaper would, and be done with the issue? [We go into a long discussion of exactly what the Taylor Report does and does not say. Cohen reads from it verbatim]:
SC: “One problem which creates difficulties for the police is the arrival of would-be spectators without tickets at an all-ticket match. While while there were not a large body of those, there were undoubtedly some. Those people who try to get in without tickets do not help the situation.”
Quote:
Fans Without Tickets
269. One problem which creates difficulties for the police is the arrival of would-be spectators without tickets at an all-ticket match. Although I found there was not a large body of such fans at Hillsborough there undoubtedly were some. At other matches the numbers have not only been large; they have been determined to gain entrance by one means or another. If they could not acquire tickets at the ground they have created so much trouble that the police have judged it best to let them in. Sometimes this has been for payment; on occasions, even free. The rationale has been that it is better to have troublemakers inside the ground where they can be monitored than roaming round the town at large. Obviously, the practice of admitting fans without tickets has a bad knock-on effect. Bands of fans unable to get tickets believe that if they turn up and create sufficient clamour the police will admit them.
269. One problem which creates difficulties for the police is the arrival of would-be spectators without tickets at an all-ticket match. Although I found there was not a large body of such fans at Hillsborough there undoubtedly were some. At other matches the numbers have not only been large; they have been determined to gain entrance by one means or another. If they could not acquire tickets at the ground they have created so much trouble that the police have judged it best to let them in. Sometimes this has been for payment; on occasions, even free. The rationale has been that it is better to have troublemakers inside the ground where they can be monitored than roaming round the town at large. Obviously, the practice of admitting fans without tickets has a bad knock-on effect. Bands of fans unable to get tickets believe that if they turn up and create sufficient clamour the police will admit them.
Quote:
Were Fans Without Tickets a Major Factor in the Build-Up?
200. It has become a fact of football life that fans do turn up at all-ticket matches without tickets. It is not possible to give an accurate figure or even a reliable estimate of the number without tickets on 15 April. Police estimates varied from about 200 to about 2,000. There were certainly frequent requests for tickets or "spares" during the hours before the build-up. Many of those warned off by the police were seen to return to the area. Some were hanging about on the bridge. Again, however, the police witnesses who most impressed me did not consider the number of ticketless fans to be inordinately large. This accords with two other sources of evidence.
201. First, there was a wide range of witnesses who observed inside the ground that the Liverpool end was at a late stage well below capacity save for pens 3 and 4. The north stand still had many empty seats and the wing pens were sparse. The match being a sell-out, there were clearly many ticket holders to come and they could account for the large crowd still outside the turnstiles. Had the Liverpool accommodation been full by 2.40 pm, one could have inferred that most or much of the large crowd outside lacked tickets.
202. Secondly, such figures as are available from the Club's electronic monitoring system and from analyses by the HSE suggest that no great number entered without tickets. They show that the number who passed through turnstiles A to G plus those who entered through gate C roughly equalled the terrace capacity figure of 10,100 for which tickets had been sold. The Club's record showed 7,038 passed through turnstiles A to G. However, the counting mechanism on turnstile G was defective, so the HSE did a study using the video film and projecting figures from the other turnstiles. This gave an assessment of 7,494, with a maximum of 7,644 passing through A to G. Again, using the video, the HSE assessed the number who entered the ground whilst gate C was open at 2,240 with a maximum of 2,480. Accordingly, the HSE's best estimate of the total entering through gate C and turnstiles A to G was 9,734 with a maximum of 10,124.1 recognise that these can only be rough checks because, for example, some with terrace tickets were allowed through turnstiles 1 to 16 and there would be other similar factors which have not formed part of the assessment. Nevertheless, the figures do suggest that there was not a very significant body of ticketless fans in the crowd which built up.
The "Conspiracy" Theory
203. On behalf of South Yorkshire police, the theory was advanced that the "late" arrival of so many Liverpool supporters was planned to buck the system. The suggestion was that fans without tickets conspired to arrive late and create such trouble as would force the police to admit them to the match. The slender evidence upon which this theory rested came from two sources: overheard conversations in public houses and the antecedent history of Liverpool supporters at away matches.
204. One witness said he heard three Liverpool supporters saying, in effect, that they would manage to get in without tickets by causing trouble so that police would open a gate, and that they had done this before. Another witness heard two of a group of Liverpool supporters say they had no tickets, that they would go to the ground just before kick-off, that no-one would stop them getting in and that they had not been stopped yet. Statements were put in relating to two other small groups talking in similar terms.
Liverpool Supporters at Away Matches
205. The South Yorkshire police prepared a dossier of reports on the behaviour of Liverpool fans at away matches with the object of showing a pattern of troublesome behaviour by large numbers either without tickets or with forged tickets. Without setting out the whole history, it can be summarised as follows.
206. On three occasions Liverpool fans without tickets were allowed into all-ticket matches upon payment. (At Watford on 13 February 1988, 1,500 were admitted; at Southampton on 24 September 1988, 150 were admitted; at Southampton again on 12 December 1988, 750 were admitted.) At Norwich on 1 April 1989, Liverpool supporters arrived without tickets but 1,272 tickets had been returned and fans from both Liverpool and Norwich were allowed to buy them for cash. A similar situation occurred at Wimbledon on 13 May 1989. There were six other occasions from 1986 to date, including the Cup finals of 1986 and 1989, when numbers of Liverpool supporters turned up without tickets or otherwise behaved badly.
207. Four points must be noted, however. On none of the occasions when ticketless fans were admitted for payment was the match a sell-out. There was therefore room in the ground on each occasion. At a sell-out fans might not expect to be allowed in, even for payment. Secondly, no trouble of the kind alleged was encountered at the 1988 semi-final when Liverpool visited Hillsborough. Thirdly, Liverpool visited Hillsborough again in January 1989 without any trouble. Finally, no forged tickets were in use on 15 April apart from three crude photocopies.
No Conspiracy
208. I have already found that there was not an abnormally large number of fans without tickets on this occasion. With one or two exceptions, the police witnesses themselves did not subscribe to the "conspiracy" theory. I am satisfied that the large concentration at Leppings Lane from 2.30 pm to 2.50 pm did not arrive as a result of any concerted plan. There were, I accept, small groups without tickets who were willing to exploit any adventitious chance of getting into the ground. They, together with the minority who had drunk too much, certainly aggravated the problem faced by the police. But that main problem was simply one of large numbers packed into the small area outside the turnstiles.
200. It has become a fact of football life that fans do turn up at all-ticket matches without tickets. It is not possible to give an accurate figure or even a reliable estimate of the number without tickets on 15 April. Police estimates varied from about 200 to about 2,000. There were certainly frequent requests for tickets or "spares" during the hours before the build-up. Many of those warned off by the police were seen to return to the area. Some were hanging about on the bridge. Again, however, the police witnesses who most impressed me did not consider the number of ticketless fans to be inordinately large. This accords with two other sources of evidence.
201. First, there was a wide range of witnesses who observed inside the ground that the Liverpool end was at a late stage well below capacity save for pens 3 and 4. The north stand still had many empty seats and the wing pens were sparse. The match being a sell-out, there were clearly many ticket holders to come and they could account for the large crowd still outside the turnstiles. Had the Liverpool accommodation been full by 2.40 pm, one could have inferred that most or much of the large crowd outside lacked tickets.
202. Secondly, such figures as are available from the Club's electronic monitoring system and from analyses by the HSE suggest that no great number entered without tickets. They show that the number who passed through turnstiles A to G plus those who entered through gate C roughly equalled the terrace capacity figure of 10,100 for which tickets had been sold. The Club's record showed 7,038 passed through turnstiles A to G. However, the counting mechanism on turnstile G was defective, so the HSE did a study using the video film and projecting figures from the other turnstiles. This gave an assessment of 7,494, with a maximum of 7,644 passing through A to G. Again, using the video, the HSE assessed the number who entered the ground whilst gate C was open at 2,240 with a maximum of 2,480. Accordingly, the HSE's best estimate of the total entering through gate C and turnstiles A to G was 9,734 with a maximum of 10,124.1 recognise that these can only be rough checks because, for example, some with terrace tickets were allowed through turnstiles 1 to 16 and there would be other similar factors which have not formed part of the assessment. Nevertheless, the figures do suggest that there was not a very significant body of ticketless fans in the crowd which built up.
The "Conspiracy" Theory
203. On behalf of South Yorkshire police, the theory was advanced that the "late" arrival of so many Liverpool supporters was planned to buck the system. The suggestion was that fans without tickets conspired to arrive late and create such trouble as would force the police to admit them to the match. The slender evidence upon which this theory rested came from two sources: overheard conversations in public houses and the antecedent history of Liverpool supporters at away matches.
204. One witness said he heard three Liverpool supporters saying, in effect, that they would manage to get in without tickets by causing trouble so that police would open a gate, and that they had done this before. Another witness heard two of a group of Liverpool supporters say they had no tickets, that they would go to the ground just before kick-off, that no-one would stop them getting in and that they had not been stopped yet. Statements were put in relating to two other small groups talking in similar terms.
Liverpool Supporters at Away Matches
205. The South Yorkshire police prepared a dossier of reports on the behaviour of Liverpool fans at away matches with the object of showing a pattern of troublesome behaviour by large numbers either without tickets or with forged tickets. Without setting out the whole history, it can be summarised as follows.
206. On three occasions Liverpool fans without tickets were allowed into all-ticket matches upon payment. (At Watford on 13 February 1988, 1,500 were admitted; at Southampton on 24 September 1988, 150 were admitted; at Southampton again on 12 December 1988, 750 were admitted.) At Norwich on 1 April 1989, Liverpool supporters arrived without tickets but 1,272 tickets had been returned and fans from both Liverpool and Norwich were allowed to buy them for cash. A similar situation occurred at Wimbledon on 13 May 1989. There were six other occasions from 1986 to date, including the Cup finals of 1986 and 1989, when numbers of Liverpool supporters turned up without tickets or otherwise behaved badly.
207. Four points must be noted, however. On none of the occasions when ticketless fans were admitted for payment was the match a sell-out. There was therefore room in the ground on each occasion. At a sell-out fans might not expect to be allowed in, even for payment. Secondly, no trouble of the kind alleged was encountered at the 1988 semi-final when Liverpool visited Hillsborough. Thirdly, Liverpool visited Hillsborough again in January 1989 without any trouble. Finally, no forged tickets were in use on 15 April apart from three crude photocopies.
No Conspiracy
208. I have already found that there was not an abnormally large number of fans without tickets on this occasion. With one or two exceptions, the police witnesses themselves did not subscribe to the "conspiracy" theory. I am satisfied that the large concentration at Leppings Lane from 2.30 pm to 2.50 pm did not arrive as a result of any concerted plan. There were, I accept, small groups without tickets who were willing to exploit any adventitious chance of getting into the ground. They, together with the minority who had drunk too much, certainly aggravated the problem faced by the police. But that main problem was simply one of large numbers packed into the small area outside the turnstiles.
Quote:
False Reports
257. Before this Inquiry began, there were stories reported in the press, and said to have emanated from police officers present at the match, of "mass drunkenness". It was said that drunken fans urinated on the police while they were pulling the dead and injured out, that others had even urinated on the bodies of the dead and stolen their belongings. Not a single witness was called before the Inquiry to support any of those allegations although every opportunity was afforded for any of the represented parties to have any witness called whom they wished. As soon as the allegations I have mentioned were made in the press, Mr Peter Wright, Chief Constable of South Yorkshire, made a dignified statement dissociating himself from such grave and emotive calumnies. Those who made them, and those who disseminated them, would have done better to hold their peace.
257. Before this Inquiry began, there were stories reported in the press, and said to have emanated from police officers present at the match, of "mass drunkenness". It was said that drunken fans urinated on the police while they were pulling the dead and injured out, that others had even urinated on the bodies of the dead and stolen their belongings. Not a single witness was called before the Inquiry to support any of those allegations although every opportunity was afforded for any of the represented parties to have any witness called whom they wished. As soon as the allegations I have mentioned were made in the press, Mr Peter Wright, Chief Constable of South Yorkshire, made a dignified statement dissociating himself from such grave and emotive calumnies. Those who made them, and those who disseminated them, would have done better to hold their peace.
Quote:
285. It is a matter of regret that at the hearing, and in their submissions, the South Yorkshire Police were not prepared to concede they were in any respect at fault in what occurred. Mr Duckenfield, under pressure of cross-examination, apologised for blaming the Liverpool fans for causing the deaths. But, that apart, the police case was to blame the fans for being late and drunk, and to blame the Club for failing to monitor the pens. It was argued that the fatal crush was not caused by the influx through gate C but was due to barrier 124a being defective. Such an unrealistic approach gives cause for anxiety as to whether lessons have been learnt. It would have been more seemly and encouraging for the future if responsibility had been faced.
A fundraising site set up by Iannone hit its target and then some - over $6,000 raised for a show that wasn't in financial trouble.
Sure, Iannone had a little trouble with these sites. He sort of had a small problem getting the text just right, so he enlisted the help of a friend.
Quote:
This is the United States of American and if these people were operating out of the Middle Easy we would call them terrorist...lets show them that we are not effected or intimidated by a bunch of thugs who are behaving like the Taliban.
Quote:
This was posted in a comment thread on the WSD fund raiser page by niannonewsd on 06/02/09 at 7:11pm:
Sorry, I thought I did answer it, I attempted to post a response to someone asking me this, I guess it might not have gone through. Steven wrote both versions himself. I can't take credit for either actually.
Sorry, I thought I did answer it, I attempted to post a response to someone asking me this, I guess it might not have gone through. Steven wrote both versions himself. I can't take credit for either actually.
That would be the Hillsborough Justice Campaign:
Quote:
And you know who's behind this... the Hillsborough bleeding Justice group who couldn't be more corrupt and more blatantly ridiculous when they get to something like this.
Nevertheless, thanks to this outpouring of support in reaction to Cohen's media offensive, Cohen went from success to success, turning a small boycott into public censure from Four Four Two, Heineken, Liverpool FC and Chelsea, and permanently burying the theory that there's no such thing as bad publicity.
Naturally, by the time July rolled around, in an attempt to bring an end to a boycott that was having no effect on him, he put out another statement on July 16th.
You might have missed it - I certainly did. I don't know if he read it on the air. The first paragraph was promoting his show. The second paragraph called the boycotters racist. The third paragraph compared his scrunching up the apology as comedy in the style of Keith Olbermann and David Letterman. The fourth paragraph tried to claim his earlier Hillsborough statements were made in good faith. The fifth paragraph tries the "ticketless fans were not helpful" trope again, but says that Cohen did make a closer reading of the Taylor Report and decided, well, reasonable minds could differ. The sixth paragraph tried once again to make people think he wasn't just talking about Liverpool, despite the "milking the tragedy joke." The seventh paragraph claims the boycott is harming innocents, and apparently is no longer of "minimal effect," despite the fundraiser. The eighth paragraph calls the boycott organizers enablers of racism. The ninth paragraph applauds Cohen for being able to rise above hate, and invites Liverpool to do the same. The tenth paragraph promises never to mention the subject again, and promotes the show's fearless discussion of any topic.
Amazingly enough, this second statement didn't end the boycott. Go figure.
If we take Cohen at his word, he has twice apologized to racist terrorists. To Cohen's credit, they weren't particularly believeable apologies. But still.
So some might ask, why continue the boycott? Well, they're racist terrorists, aren't they? In all seriousness, once that card has been played, there really is no turning back. And if I'm calling out, by name, the people involved in the boycott, I shouldn't be astounded that those people take it personally.
I think it's fair to say that Cohen is trying to make the bare minimum required to end the boycott, short of actually apologizing. It's fair to say that the boycotters won't be satisfied until Cohen is no longer on the air, or at least no longer sponsored by anyone. We can agree or disagree with who is right, but I don't think there's much room to dispute the two views, given their premises. Cohen thinks (or at least, is saying out loud) he's standing up to racist terrorists. (Never mind the apologies.) The Liverpool supporters think they're dealing with a serial liar. Why would either one trust the other at this point? You'd have to be deluded.
So, being deluded, Cohen enlisted the help of a professor of political science at UCLA named Mark Sawyer, in hopes of bringing an end to our long national nightmare.
The one tiny problem with this approach is that Sawyer may have been the single least suitable person for this purpose in the entire English--speaking world. Read
this, and marvel at who they give tenure to these days. Might as well use my degree as a paper airplane.
Anyhoo, Sawyer's mediation ended up about as effectively as a block of sodium in a high school toilet, thanks perhaps partially to Cohen reading some hate mail on his show on July 19:
Quote:
And before I read this, OK, I want you to understand, and I’m gonna let go, I want you to understand one thing about this, OK? This guy who wrote this email is an official member of an official supporters group which is sanctioned and an official supporters group of Liverpool Football Club. Liverpool Football Club have post, have post (sic) articles about us and this boycott, sanctioning this boycott on their website. Which means that it goes to Hicks and Gillett who sit on the board at Liverpool and who are two Americans, who are in my opinion, and you can say I’m connecting the dots or whatever, in my opinion they are in charge of this.
Quote:
Okay- let's be clear. What proof would confirm to you he has gone to the FBI. I know the LAPD gives a receipt for a report. The FBI does not but I ask him to list the name of his agent.
Quote:
You have the email. I am sure Steven believes him to be a member. But obviously he can't "PROVE" he is a member. Why does it matter? I am willing to stipulate that from his email address if you can't prove he is a member neither can Steven. So, we are wiling to stipulate that there is no "proof" he is a member of your organization. Hell I mean without advanced techniques and investigation we could never prove there is such a person or that he is a Liverpool fan or whatever. I don't understand how this is material and I also find it a bit folly when there are plenty of things I have provided you on your own message boards. What are you doing about that? Those are members no doubt.
For those of you keeping track, the number of nefarious racist terrorists targeting Steven Cohen keeps growing. It's almost as if it wasn't all Christopher Harris at EPL Talk after all.
The story is still ongoing, which means there might be yet more comedy to unfold. By Cohen's own measure, he doesn't have enough supporters or listeners willing to stand by him. His apologies don't approach the sincerity of his accusations, for what should be obvious reasons. And now, he's adopting the tactics he condemns in others.
If Cohen survives this, it will be despite his very best efforts at self-destruction. If you can't handle the heat, don't set yourself on fire.
*Anyone else remember "Norm," starring Norm Macdonald? Unappreciated masterpiece. Anyway, there's a bit where Norm tries to apologize for having bet on hockey games. Problem was, years earlier, he had made this statement (I apologize for the paraphrase):
"I'm not sorry. I'm glad I did it. I'd do it again. I'll never apologize. If I ever do apologize, I'm lying. And if I ever say that I've seen the error of my ways, I'm lying about that too. And if I ever try to say that I am sincere about my apology and I was lying to you now? I'm lying."
**Kenny Hassan, of whose existence I had been blissfully unaware before all this, deserves an order of magnitude more scorn than he has gotten. Suffice to say that American soccer has finally found the Alan Colmes it has been desperately not looking for.
***"Interim Report" and "Final Report" are misnomers; the first was about Hillsborough specifically, the final was about the state of football in England.
Post a Comment
Total Comments 205
Comments
-
I'm not interested in the topic; therefore, nobody should be.Posted 20 Aug 2009 at 05:32 PM by herm2020 
Updated 20 Aug 2009 at 05:39 PM by Dan Loney (Thanks, herm. Back button's on your upper left) -
I'm not interested in the topic; therefore, nobody should be.Posted 20 Aug 2009 at 05:57 PM by Tonkdaddy14
Updated 20 Aug 2009 at 06:02 PM by Dan Loney (Thanks, Tonk. Back button's on your upper left.) -
I'm not interested in the topic; therefore, nobody should be.
Posted 20 Aug 2009 at 05:58 PM by FatAndUgly
Updated 20 Aug 2009 at 06:02 PM by Dan Loney (Thanks, F&U. Back button's on your upper left.) -
Wow, you really have it in for Steven Cohen.
Posted 20 Aug 2009 at 06:10 PM by Berkmaniac
-
Yup.Quote:Originally Posted by Berkmaniac
Wow, you really have it in for Steven Cohen.
By the way, guys? This blog works a lot better when I get to write about what I want to write about.Posted 20 Aug 2009 at 06:15 PM by Dan Loney
-
Wow, such clever editing.
The topic was fine. I love to hate Cohen. And one day we won't have to hear his ridiculous voice on the air anymore. But there comes a time when a blog crosses the line from simply being well-researched. What's next? A tattoo with his ugly mug on it, with a red line through it?Posted 20 Aug 2009 at 06:16 PM by FatAndUgly
-
I thought next, I'd research him and his family, and send him veiled threats with details about his personal life. Oh, wait.Quote:Originally Posted by FatAndUgly
Wow, such clever editing.
The topic was fine. I love to hate Cohen. And one day we won't have to hear his ridiculous voice on the air anymore. But there comes a time when a blog crosses the line from simply being well-researched. What's next? A tattoo with his ugly mug on it, with a red line through it?Posted 20 Aug 2009 at 06:27 PM by Dan Loney
-
I love how the Bigsoccer blogs have effectively become American soccer's truth squad this summer.Posted 20 Aug 2009 at 06:35 PM by Aaron Stollar
-
The comments usually work a lot better when people can give their input and not have to worry about being edited by somebody who is obviously insecure/sensitive about their writing.Quote:Originally Posted by Dan Loney
Yup.
By the way, guys? This blog works a lot better when I get to write about what I want to write about.
"I'm not interested in the topic; therefore, nobody should be."
Really? Was that what I was saying, that nobody should be interested because it doesn't interest me? Or rather, was it "I'm not interested in this topic because it goes so far and beyond beating a dead horse that we had to start using another metaphor". It wouldn't be "beating a dead horse" if you offered up some kind of important development in the story, but Cohen offering up information about an individual hardly constitutes a threat (if it did, hold Phonebooks, Facebook, and you're counties property assessment of your house/tax information accountable).
I read everything you write, and I like most of it, but if you can't handle negative feedback you should probably stop writing because your ability to edit commentary isn't going to change the way people feel about the topic.Posted 20 Aug 2009 at 06:42 PM by Tonkdaddy14
-
I cant believe the obsession with this guy.
Write about some soccer stuff eh? Like why Tottenham is off to such a hot start? Or the impact that the "Summer of Soccer" had on the US? Anything in between?
You've got the BigSoccer front page at your disposal.
Well, a longtime soccer radio host is stalking one of his listeners. I suppose I could....
Wait. You want a blog post about Spurs? After two games? They won at home and Hull sucks. How good would that look on the home page?
And assuming you mean "Summer of Soccer" to be the international MLS friendlies, I am gonna write about that. Just not right this ********ing second. And you're probably not gonna like that post, either, because I'm going to reference crap I care about and that you probably don't. And I'm not going to call it the "Summer of Soccer," because that was just an idiotic MLS marketing term designed to rope in non-fans to watch shiny objects.
"Gee, Dan, why do you edit comments?" Because the alternative is me screaming at you, ever think of that? -D.Posted 20 Aug 2009 at 06:59 PM by Palermo10
Updated 20 Aug 2009 at 07:13 PM by Dan Loney (You know what, I SHOULD have edited.)
|
Post a Comment
|
Total Trackbacks 0
