News, views and opinion on Liverpool FC
The Merseyside derby ended up uncharacteristically short of incident, with Sylvain Distin’s controversially disallowed goal the only real talking point in tense affair
A news article on 2013-05-05 14:20:00 from: Goal
Read the full article here.
This news item has been reproduced from today’s media. It does not necessarily represent the opinion of Kop That.
Liverpool could be set for a new multi-million pound sponsorship deal with Qatari telecom company Ooredoo, which could result in Anfield being renamed.
A news article on 2013-04-29 07:40:00 from: ESPN
Read the full article here.
This news item has been reproduced from today’s media. It does not necessarily represent the opinion of Kop That.
LIVERPOOL have distanced themselves from reports in the Middle East that a Qatari telecommunications company are in advanced talks to become the club’s new main sponsor.
A news article on 2013-04-28 23:00:00 from: Liverpool Echo
Read the full article here.
This news item has been reproduced from today’s media. It does not necessarily represent the opinion of Kop That.
Liverpool striker committed the ultimate sin when he sank his teeth into Chelsea’s defender Branislav Ivanovic
We have all at some stage forgotten to empty the bread bin when we went on holiday, or left a pear in the fruit bowl, and returned to discover a repulsive mass of mould. Fridges help to delay this process by keeping food cold and dry, but imagine instead placing your comestibles in a warm, damp place, deliberately mushing them up and then leaving them to fester. A bacterium could hardly imagine a finer breeding ground. Imagine what vile horrors would swiftly grow within. This is the mouth.
Now imagine a colourless liquid that contains the very essence of you. Not just DNA, but enough information to detect things as varied as diabetes, allergies, recreational drug use and HIV, as well as strong doses of sex hormones and between 10 and 100 million bacteria per millilitre. This is saliva.
It’s not surprising that we find mouths, handy as they are for communicating and consuming, a bit odd. Unpleasant even. Sport has a very British attitude to the mouth. It is to be used for calling the toss, and then closed. You may run and jump, throw and catch, kick and punch, you may even hit things with sticks or shoot them with arrows and bullets, but bare your teeth and you’re in trouble.
Of course greater injury can be inflicted using a booted foot than even the most savage mouth, and very frequently is. But mouth-attacks still carry a particular resonance. As Frank Rijkaard, author of football’s most notorious incident, will attest, they are remembered when the casually cracked fibula is forgotten, and punished with a vigour forgotten when more genuinely harmful assaults are committed.
This year the Irish prop Cian Healy was banned for three convenient weeks for stamping on England’s Dan Cole in the Six Nations match at the Aviva Stadium in an apparently deliberate attempt to cause injury; when the Stade Français halfback Jerome Fillol spat at Bath’s Peter Stringer a few weeks later no injury was possible, but his ban will last for 14 weeks.
Aim a kick or a punch at a rival and you will be criticised for your violence; aim your saliva at them and the backlash will be worse. Two examples from late2004 illustrate the point. In one, Manchester United’s Ruud Van Nistelrooy attacked Arsenal’s Ashley Cole with his studs, in the other Bolton’s El Hadji Diouf spat at Portsmouth’s Arjan de Zeeuw.
Van Nistelrooy got a three-week ban but also the support of his club, and said in a statement that “there was no deliberate attempt to harm”. Diouf got a three-week ban and a two-week fine, was condemned by his manager and said in a statement that “my behaviour showed a lack of moral responsibility”. Arsène Wenger said Van Nistelrooy was “silly”; Gary Speed, who played with Diouf at Bolton at the time, described spitting as “probably the worst thing that can happen to you”.
If attempts to injure are bad and saliva is worse, attempts to injure that involve saliva are the perfect storm of evil. Biting is normally the preserve of morally confused infants, and though footballers are prone to the occasional exhibition of juvenile idiocy, this is a level to which they are normally unwilling to stoop. But no blood was drawn by Luis Suárez on Sunday; Branislav Ivanovic’s immediate reaction seemed to be astonishment, rather than agony.
Already the Uruguayan has been fined, offered anger-management counselling, condemned by his club and forced to issue a public apology, and the FA looks set to act next. When Wigan’s Callum McManaman all-but amputated Massadio Haidara’s leg in March he met none of those fates. Why is it that football’s disciplinarians only bared their teeth after a footballer did the same?
Perhaps we need to rethink where spitting and biting dispassionately deserve to be placed on sport’s crime sheet. Without wishing to exonerate him, Suárez’s actions were neither massively violent nor necessarily evil, and something about his ongoing demonisation sticks in the craw.
His biting certainly seemed extremely weird, but can the same not be said of our approach to the mouth?
A news article on 2013-04-22 14:23:00 from: The Guardian
Read the full article here.
This news item has been reproduced from today’s media. It does not necessarily represent the opinion of Kop That.
Brendan Rodgers marks his 50th match as Liverpool boss on Sunday knowing his work in returning the club to Europe’s elite has barely started.
A news article on 2013-04-20 12:08:00 from: Football 365
Read the full article here.
This news item has been reproduced from today’s media. It does not necessarily represent the opinion of Kop That.
LIVERPOOL FC principal owner John W Henry and chairman Tom Werner will attend today’s memorial service at Anfield on the 24th anniversary of Hillsborough.
A news article on 2013-04-15 08:23:00 from: Liverpool Echo
Read the full article here.
This news item has been reproduced from today’s media. It does not necessarily represent the opinion of Kop That.
Norman Bettison, former West Yorkshire chief constable, attacked over behaviour since Hillsborough report
A senior police officer who allegedly engaged in “black propaganda” in the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster has been heavily criticised by the police watchdog over his behaviour after the publication of an independent report on the tragedy last year.
Sir Norman Bettison, former chief constable of West Yorkshire police, has a case to answer for gross misconduct over his attempts to influence his police authority to present him in the best light after the damning Hillsborough independent panel report was published last September, the IPCC said.
Bettison cannot be disciplined because he has quit the police service and the IPCC said it was unacceptable that senior officers like him were able to retire to avoid disciplinary action and dismissal.
In a report published on Thursday, the police watchdog said Bettison, who was an officer with the South Yorkshire force at the time of Hillsborough, engaged in “discreditable conduct and abuse of authority”. Solicitors for Bettison questioned the fairness of the IPCC investigation and said he had himself wished to be investigated by the IPCC.
The IPCC concluded that Bettison had attempted to influence his police authority – West Yorkshire – when it was considering referring him to the police watchdog over his alleged part in a “black propaganda” campaign in the aftermath of the football stadium disaster that killed 96 people.
The police authority called a meeting after publication of the Hillsborough independent panel report, which identified Bettison as a member of a small police team engaged in presenting actions of the South Yorkshire force in the best light after the disaster. The actions of the force were labelled black propaganda in the Commons.
But Bettison, the IPCC said, had intervened and tried to manipulate his police authority as they considered referring him to the police watchdog over the black propaganda claims. Bettison, one of the most senior officers at Hillsborough who was still serving, wanted to make himself look good by taking control of the process. “At issue was his professed desire that he refer himself to the IPCC,” it says. Bettison, the IPCC found, did not attempt to stop the referral happening, but the contact he made with Fraser Sampson, the chief executive of West Yorkshire police authority, and Mark Burns-Williamson, its chair, were attempts to influence and manipulate their decision.
“By his own account, Sir Norman was anxious for the complaints against him to be referred to the IPCC, but the evidence demonstrates that he wanted to control the process,” the IPCC says.
The IPCC said he had “attempted to manipulate public messages”, adding that it was “concerning that his first thoughts appear to have been to protect his own position”.
Bettison still faces a more substantial IPCC investigation into the allegations that he played a central role in a propaganda campaign in the aftermath of the disaster that involved South Yorkshire police, the force at the centre of the Hillsborough disaster cover-up – attempting to smear the fans and to put itself in a positive light. Bettison was a chief inspector with South Yorkshire police at the time of the 1989 disaster.
Bettison’s solicitor, John Harding, said: “The IPCC has recognised that my client, Sir Norman Bettison, did himself wish to be investigated by the IPCC in connection with allegations made in respect of Hillsborough.
“He remains keen to see that the investigation into the substantive matters is progressed as quickly as possible.
“The IPCC has decided that it considers my client acted improperly in seeking approval from the police authority to refer himself to the IPCC.
“The decision that there is a case to answer is not a finding of guilt. This point is accepted, explicitly, in the foreword of the IPCC report and it therefore sits, uncomfortably, with some of the comments in the investigator’s report, made after an incomplete investigation.
“Sir Norman voluntarily attended interview, provided a written statement and invited the IPCC to interview witnesses.
“Since there can be no formal misconduct hearing, my client is denied the opportunity to call those witnesses, which the IPCC declined to interview, and is denied the opportunity to put his case and challenge other evidence, which calls into question the fairness of such a process.”
A news article on 2013-03-28 20:48:00 from: The Guardian
Read the full article here.
This news item has been reproduced from today’s media. It does not necessarily represent the opinion of Kop That.
Police watchdog finds former West Yorkshire chief attempted to influence his police authority over ‘black propaganda’ claims
Sir Norman Bettison, the former chief constable of West Yorkshire police, has a case to answer for gross misconduct over his behaviour following publication of the Hillsborough independent panel report, the police watchdog said.
But Bettison, who left the service in the aftermath of the damning Hillsborough report last year, cannot be disciplined or dismissed because he is no longer a serving officer. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) found in a report published on Thursday that he had a case to answer for “discreditable conduct and abuse of authority”, breaches which would justify dismissal.
The IPCC concluded that Bettison had attempted to influence his police authority when it was considering referring him to the police watchdog over his alleged part in a “black propaganda” campaign in the aftermath of the football stadium disaster that killed 96 people.
The report indicated Bettison wanted to make himself look good by taking control of the process. “At issue was his professed desire that he refer himself to the IPCC, whether it was appropriate for him to try to do this and how he attempted to make it happen.”
Bettison, the IPCC found, did not attempt to stop the referral happening, but the contact he made with Fraser Sampson, the chief executive of West Yorkshire police authority, and Mark Burns-Williamson, its chair, were attempts to influence and manipulate their decision.
The report says Bettison’s account of what happened contrasted with that of the chief executive of the authority.
“By his own account Sir Norman was anxious for the complaints against him to be referred to the IPCC, but the evidence demonstrates that he wanted to control the process,” the IPCC says.
“Given the content of the Hillsborough independent panel’s report which implied that he may have been involved in manipulating the facts and supplying misinformation to the media, parliament and the public following the Hillsborough disaster, the evidence suggesting that he has attempted to manipulate public messages can only be damaging to his reputation. It is concerning that his first thoughts appear to have been to protect his own position.”
Bettison – who retired last October – was, when the report came out, the most senior serving officer to have been involved in the Hillsborough disaster. He is still the subject of a more substantial IPCC investigation into allegations that he played a role in a propaganda campaign in the aftermath of the disaster that involved South Yorkshire police – the force at the centre of the Hillsborough disaster cover-up – attempting to smear the fans and to put itself in a positive light.
The IPCC published its findings on Bettison because he will not face a disciplinary hearing as he is no longer serving. The watchdog said it had published to let “the public judge”.
IPCC deputy chair Deborah Glass, said: “His attempts to manipulate and manage the perception of the referral of complaints about him, for his own self-interest, is particularly concerning. It is also conduct that falls far short of what should be expected of a chief constable.
“It was the IPCC’s view at the start of the investigation, as it was the view of his police authority, that Sir Norman’s actions, if proven, fell so far short of what is expected of a chief constable that dismissal would be justified. The evidence uncovered during the investigation supports that view.
“While we cannot bring this case to misconduct proceedings, we can publish the evidence so that the public can judge for themselves.
“This case should also serve as a salutary reminder to chief officers everywhere of how much public confidence is damaged when the conduct of leaders is called into question.”
A news article on 2013-03-28 10:13:00 from: The Guardian
Read the full article here.
This news item has been reproduced from today’s media. It does not necessarily represent the opinion of Kop That.
THE coroner who conducted the original Hillsborough inquests will be questioned to establish what contact he had with police officers and why he ordered checks on the blood alcohol levels of those who died.
A news article on 2013-03-25 07:40:00 from: Liverpool Echo
Read the full article here.
This news item has been reproduced from today’s media. It does not necessarily represent the opinion of Kop That.
RT @Erin_ONeill_Xo: I would like to go here again soon.. ❤❤❤ #milano http://t.co/4Pr6PdZusO
Liverpool News 24/7
