The 1985 Valley Parade fire

[enzee199]

The 1985 Valley Parade fire

NHH wrote: Just spent 20 minutes reading a Bradford City forum and it makes me hate football and its fans. I biggest bunch of ingrate forelock tugging knuckle-dragging twats I've yet to see.

TLR version: Martin Fletcher is profiting on the back of the fire, there's no evidence, and Stafford saved the club twice.

It bloody saddens me too. To accuse Fletcher of profiting is beyond low. Reading the Guardian pieces it's clear what a toll this has taken on him. I can't even begin to imagine how hard it must have been for him to immerse himself in the research work he undertook.

[SouthdownRebel]

The 1985 Valley Parade fire

If profit had been his motive he could have just written a "me and the fire" account without the years of hard graft.

I've no doubt there'll be some fans who've taken his evidence as an attack on the club itself and therefore on them. I've also seen posts on the Claret & Banter forum suggesting a lefty conspiracy. The mind boggles.

[Central Rain]

The 1985 Valley Parade fire

Some of the people commenting on there seem to have paid so little attention that they've overlooked the fact that Martin Fletcher was actually there and lost 4 members of his family.

As for 'profit', I doubt if what he's getting for the book would do much more than cover the costs of writing it.

[Hugh Fatbastard]

The 1985 Valley Parade fire

[Claret and Banter]So what he lost some businesses to fire ? He was never found guilty of anything. Stafford Heginbotham was a top bloke. Mark Fletcher is out for money, why else would he bring this out now ? This is disrespectful. Boycott the Guardian [/Claret and Banter]

Are all supporter boards full of nutters ?

Actually, no need to answer that as I'm sure they are.

[enzee199]

The 1985 Valley Parade fire

Hugh Fatbastard wrote: [Claret and Banter]So what he lost some businesses to fire ? He was never found guilty of anything. Stafford Heginbotham was a top bloke. Mark Fletcher is out for money, why else would he bring this out now ? This is disrespectful. Boycott the Guardian [/Claret and Banter]

Are all supporter boards full of nutters ?

Actually, no need to answer that as I'm sure they are.

Sadly, I think the nuances of probability theory - i.e that amount of fires is, to say the least, pretty fucking unlikely under normal circumstances - is quite beyond them.

Reading the story in the Guardian made me feel physically sick with the shock and horror of it, but just hearing about some of the message board reaction makes me feel equally as sick.

Sadly it's all too typical. The comments section on my local rag brings out the worst cretins, more so if the story is tragic.

[McAvennie]

The 1985 Valley Parade fire

I too had a look at the Claret and Banter site and the general consensus that SH was a loveable rogue who saved the club was quite astonishing in the face of the evidence.

I've wondered for a long time about the seemingly reluctant stance of anyone to look for justice in this case, where there is arguably more blame to be laid than Hillsborough.

The C&B stance seems to be 'why would he burn the stand down during a game?' but surely it could be seen that it was a horrible, horrible accident - even if it was an 'accident' that was meant to happen later in the day after the match was over.

The evidence is there, it is not speculation... it is reported fact that these eight fires occurred and SH gained financially from them. It Is a known fact that the stand that burned down needed modernization and the funds were not available to do it.

In another depressing development the local MP and leader of the council at the time has already come out and said this new evidence is not enough to warrant a review of the case. Seriously?

[Satchmo Distel]

The 1985 Valley Parade fire

My two doubts about his guilt are:

a) it must have been very difficult to suppress remorse. You watch 56 people burn to death due to your actions and then spend much of the rest of your life dealing with the aftermath, such as the Popplewell enquiry.

b) it seems uncharacteristic of insurance companies that they'd let a guy scam them of 27 million quid over 8 separate fires. Surely they'd look for the links?

[Janik]

The 1985 Valley Parade fire

Mr Beast wrote: Seems pretty damning to me.

The case for the prosecution generally will without a case for the defence also being presented. A careful and unemotional attempted rebuttal of this would be an interesting read, simply because how successful such a piece is would give a good indication of how close to the truth today's story is.

NHH wrote: TLR version: Martin Fletcher is profiting on the back of the fire, there's no evidence, and Stafford saved the club twice.

The middle one is actually a decent point. So far what is in the Guardian is only circumstantial stuff (other fires connected to him, financial situation, etc.). There are hints of more detail from the Fire Brigade/Investigators which contradicts the official account of how the fire start, which may provide something [strike]more[/strike] directly incriminating [edit - a better choice of word] when part II is published, though you would think they would put the big hits into the first one. Maybe that is why Fletcher himself hedges his bets by reportedly never actually accusing the chairman of having the fire set? Alternatively, given the guy Fletcher isn't quite accusing is long dead, he may not see any point in doing so. That would fit with his reported stance that another inquest or public enquiry isn't worth pursuing.

McAvennie wrote: The C&B stance seems to be 'why would he burn the stand down during a game?' but surely it could be seen that it was a horrible, horrible accident - even if it was an 'accident' that was meant to happen later in the day after the match was over.

And that is also a decent question (and not just because I asked it myself on the first page!). When Ken Richardson hired some goons to do this at Belle Vue, it happened at night, in the closed season. If someone was doing it deliberately during the game, then they were taking recklessness to whole new level. However... also noted in one of the Guardian stories is the gates at the back of this stand were actually unlocked (though they appeared otherwise) when the fire started during the first half*. That is, shall we say, unusually early. For any game, but especially for a high profile game where some people may have been tempted to sneak in late without paying. Which is yet another suspicious piece of circumstantial evidence of something seriously fishy.

* - also worth noting that this is in flat contradiction to the generally accepted version of events. Apparently the second edition of Football Grounds of Great Britain reports that a handful were found open (I have the third, which references the second but doesn't give that detail), which would mean both ways of reporting this are partially true.

Fletcher is surely wrong in not wanting further judicial investigation, however lairy of that process he may feel. His work merits it, in fact today's headlines positively demand it.

[Janik]

The 1985 Valley Parade fire

enzee199 wrote: Sadly, I think the nuances of probability theory - i.e that amount of fires is, to say the least, pretty fucking unlikely under normal circumstances - is quite beyond them.

Erm, I'm not sure this stands up. Probability theory would tell you that outliers, like a number of accidental fires happening to the same guy/organisation, are somewhat more common than is generally perceived. For anyone one individual it is vanishingly unlikely. For it to have happened to someone, somewhere in a large population? The odds grow surprisingly fast.

But it should have served as a flag for further investigation, that is for certain. Which would have uncovered other factors, like the alleged convenient timing of said fires. This doesn't appear to have happened.

[SouthdownRebel]

The 1985 Valley Parade fire

Those who take today's revelations as proof positive make the same mistake as those who dismiss them out of hand, only from the opposite end of the the spectrum.

Janik wrote: Fletcher is surely wrong in not wanting further judicial investigation, however lairy of that process he may feel. His work merits it, in fact today's headlines positively demand it.

Totally agree. I can understand why Fletcher would feel that way, though he must appreciate that without it this will remain nothing but his personal crusade. From what I've read so far, he's done enough - time to let someone else take over.

Janik wrote: But it should have served as a flag for further investigation, that is for certain. Which would have uncovered other factors, like the alleged convenient timing of said fires. This doesn't appear to have happened.

This is something else which demands attention if there is anything to the story. In the Bradford case, it's not hard to imagine the attitudes of the authorities of the day towards football and fans having a heavy influence on the outcome of the investigation.

One wonders what, if anything, Gerry Sutcliffe has to lose from further investigations - his eagerness to release a statement playing down the new claims is curious given how serious they are.

Sir Oliver Popplewell's reason for reticence is more obvious:

"If we had been aware of these fires at the time of course they would have demanded further investigation, but I am not sure what they would have revealed," Sir Oliver said.

Well, of course you can't be sure what they would have revealed, the point of investigating being to reveal things previously uncertain.

To summarise, there's not enough in the new claims to be definitive from a legal standpoint, regardless of how damning they read, but there's certainly enough to warrant a rigorous investigation of them.

[McAvennie]

The 1985 Valley Parade fire

Janik wrote:

The C&B stance seems to be 'why would he burn the stand down during a game?' but surely it could be seen that it was a horrible, horrible accident - even if it was an 'accident' that was meant to happen later in the day after the match was over.

And that is also a decent question (and not just because I asked it myself on the first page!). When Ken Richardson hired some goons to do this at Belle Vue, it happened at night, in the closed season. If someone was doing it deliberately during the game, then they were taking recklessness to whole new level. However... also noted in one of the Guardian stories is the gates at the back of this stand were actually unlocked (though they appeared otherwise) when the fire started during the first half*. That is, shall we say, unusually early. For any game, but especially for a high profile game where some people may have been tempted to sneak in late without paying. Which is yet another suspicious piece of circumstantial evidence of something seriously fishy.

This is clear, if the plan was to burn the stand down and claim on insurance doing it after the last home game of the season is the obvious time.

However, never in a million years do I believe the plan would have been to do it during the game, the risk of people being killed, or witnesses to the crime would make that absolute insanity - though it seems to be what the C&B users are seeing as the only possibility if it was deliberate.

Without wanting to go off on some Agatha Christie supposition of what could have happened, my thought would be - if we are to take the implication in the Guardian piece and run with it - that the plan was to burn the stand down after the game. Maybe overnight, maybe around 5-30/6pm when the majority of supporters had left the ground so a fallen cigarette could still be used as the blame. I have no idea how you start a fire in an arson in order to cover your tracks, if something can be rigged to create a spark on a timer... maybe whoever was charged with starting the fire just had to light some of the rubbish under the stand and was doing a small test to see how easy it would be to get started and it took hold and couldn't be put out... such acts of human stupidity ought never to be underestimated.

Without something a bit stronger revealed by the Guardian today this story has just planted a seed of doubt that will now fester and have both those dismissing it and those believing it riling themselves up at the other's stance. For that reason I can understand the C&B posters asking for it to be left in the past.

On the other hand, given the number of historic cases we have heard about of corruption, cronyism and covering up for notable figures in the 70s/80s, it would be utter madness for there not to be some kind of review of this case in light of this development.

Interesting to see what part two of the serialisation will bring.

[Geoffrey de Ste. Croix]

The 1985 Valley Parade fire

However, never in a million years do I believe the plan would have been to do it during the game, the risk of people being killed, or witnesses to the crime would make that absolute insanity - though it seems to be what the C&B users are seeing as the only possibility if it was deliberate.

This. Like everyone else, I was dumbfounded by the Guardian stories yesterday and simply cannot accept that someone would have done this deliberately to kill over 50 people. I don't doubt that it was an insurance job and as McAvennie said the end of the season was the best time to do it but I cannot accept that Heginbotham (and accomplices) would have deliberately waited until the stand was full to murder supporters.

I await the the rest of the serialisation with grim interest.

[enzee199]

The 1985 Valley Parade fire

Geoffrey de Ste. Croix wrote:

However, never in a million years do I believe the plan would have been to do it during the game, the risk of people being killed, or witnesses to the crime would make that absolute insanity - though it seems to be what the C&B users are seeing as the only possibility if it was deliberate.

This. Like everyone else, I was dumbfounded by the Guardian stories yesterday and simply cannot accept that someone would have done this deliberately to kill over 50 people. I don't doubt that it was an insurance job and as McAvennie said the end of the season was the best time to do it but I cannot accept that Heginbotham (and accomplices) would have deliberately waited until the stand was full to murder supporters.

I await the the rest of the serialisation with grim interest.

I think this bit is what is fairly clear - it is almost unthinkable that there was any deliberate attempt for there to be casualties. If we accept the Guardian hypothesis, or rather the inferred hypothesis it is that something went wrong, that the fire took hold quickly.

That something went wrong is not surprising given that the very act of setting anything ablaze involves being reckless to say the least and results in at the very least considerable danger for those fighting the fire.

Could such recklessness be amplified by someone having successfully got away with it on a number of occasions before?

[Muukalainen]

The 1985 Valley Parade fire

McAvennie wrote: This is clear, if the plan was to burn the stand down and claim on insurance doing it after the last home game of the season is the obvious time.

However, never in a million years do I believe the plan would have been to do it during the game, the risk of people being killed, or witnesses to the crime would make that absolute insanity...

... - that the plan was to burn the stand down after the game. Maybe overnight, maybe around 5-30/6pm when the majority of supporters had left the ground so a fallen cigarette could still be used as the blame.

For a fire to take hold, enough combustible material is needed to ensure that the fire spreads to the stand. Either that combustible material is already in place or it needs to be put there. If we follow the theory that the intention was to start a fire some time after the game ended and you need to bring in extra combustible material, when would you do that bringing? After the game, on a day when hundreds of supporters could be expected to be hanging around well after the final whistle, or beforehand?

Like everyone else, I can't believe that anyone would deliberately start a fire with thousands of people above their head. It may be that it was an intended insurance job that was inadvertently started by a member of the public, or it may be the tragedy (I won't use the word "accident" because the club were warned about the risk of fire and chose to ignore it) that we've been led to believe it was.

[Mumpo]

The 1985 Valley Parade fire

The other explanation is that although the previous eight fires were a result of arson, the Valley Parade fire was a genuine accident (albeit facilitated by neglect). Bad karma?

[McAvennie]

The 1985 Valley Parade fire

Indeed, a stand stuffed with whatever might be used to accelerate a fire the night before would then make said stand far more prone to being caught alight by a dropped cigarette in amongst regular uncleared rubbish.

That actually makes a comment I read on C&B make much more sense. I read it this morning and couldn't figure what the poster was getting at but this makes it crystal clear. His words were "My take on this, the fire started literally 5/6 rows directly behind where I was sat is that this tragedy happened because it had never happened before, think about it..........."

If we believe the cigarette theory and we know that BCFC had been warned that the build up of litter was a real danger then surely something like this should have happened earlier in the season. It is possible that the wrong cigarette, fell in the wrong place at the wrong time and it was a terrible accident - but if it had happened before (which it surely must have) why the horrendous end result on that day?

There is also a link on the Guardian page to the report printed the day after. It mentions reports of smoke bombs being thrown and of people setting light to the rubbish under their seats. A childish prank gone wrong? Were those causes fully investigated at the time? To me the cause has always been 'dropped cigarette, nothing more to see'.

Sadly with the passing of time and clouding of memory it would be a flawed exercise reinterviewing survivors. On another MB yesterday I saw several people discussing their memories of what they saw on TV only to then have the YouTube video posted which completely contradicted their memories.

[Muukalainen]

The 1985 Valley Parade fire

Neither can we ignore the possibility, no matter how small that may seem, that the accumulation of material to reach critical point occurred during the game.

[Janik]

The 1985 Valley Parade fire

McAvennie wrote: Without something a bit stronger revealed by the Guardian today this story has just planted a seed of doubt that will now fester and have both those dismissing it and those believing it riling themselves up at the other's stance.

Which would appear to be close to the personal journey that Fletcher has gone on. It seems his Mum was anecdotally aware of the fires, so didn't believe this was inadvertent. He set out to investigate and prove her wrong and so give her peace of mind, and has ended up convinced she was right all along.

[My Name Is Ian]

The 1985 Valley Parade fire

I guess it's not particularly surprising that Justice Popplewell considers the story to be "nonsense."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-32330734

After all, thirty years ago he was stating that "hunting the facts, not deciding who's to blame."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiu7ajj7p6g

[My Name Is Ian]

The 1985 Valley Parade fire

And this interview with Stafford Heginbotham in 1986 (two minutes in) is, well, a curio, to say the least:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLK4k1vIP30

[Sash08]

The 1985 Valley Parade fire

Popplewell on Hillsborough families in 2011
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2011/oct/19/judge-hillsborough-families-conspiracy-theories

And Fletcher's response via David Conn the following day
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2011/oct/20/bradford-disaster-attacks-judge-hillsborough

[Guest]

The 1985 Valley Parade fire

There really is a lot of rumors that have been circling around this tragedy. There have been a lot of angles as to what transpired that tragic day that killed 56 football fans. Whatever the truth is, it really needs to be backed up by solid facts as we all know that in today's world, powerful people can sometimes bend the truth.

[treibeis]

The 1985 Valley Parade fire

JasonNorin wrote: we all know that in today's world, [strike]powerful people can sometimes bend the truth[/strike] people put links to betting websites in their signatures.

Fixed that for you.

[Kid A]

The 1985 Valley Parade fire

Sash08 wrote: Popplewell on Hillsborough families in 2011
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2011/oct/19/judge-hillsborough-families-conspiracy-theories

And Fletcher's response via David Conn the following day
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2011/oct/20/bradford-disaster-attacks-judge-hillsborough

Popplewell states in that first piece that the stand had no insurance value as it was due for demolition, which does beg the question why would you burn it down deliberately as an insurance job? This assumes he is correct in stating that.

[NHH]

The 1985 Valley Parade fire

I remember reading David Conn's chapter on this and the presence under the stands of old newspapers from 17 years earlier was used to demonstrate the shoddy approach to fan safety; maybe they were not that shoddy, after all.

The gates being open, but made to look locked on cursory glance would support the notion that they wanted people to be able to enter the ground through those gates, pointing towards people actually filling the undercroft up during the game, but in that event there are so many people milling around in stands, visiting loos and such like that surely someone would have seen them and reported it?