Jump to content

The Bradford Fire


Recommended Posts

  • 11 months later...
Guest Geordiesned

No surprise to see the Judge saying that to be honest. He wouldn't want to lose face after all.

 

I read about the book yesterday - you certainly can't say there wasn't plenty research went into it!

 

http://gu.com/p/47g28/stw

Link to post
Share on other sites

Take it all with a pinch of salt. The book is written by someone who wants a direction to point a finger of blame to for their loss.

 

The book is full of stories and wives tales and there is no evidence to back it up. The biggest claim is that the stand was set alight by the chairmen for the insurance money yet the stand wasn't even insured as it was due to be demolished the next day. Also why would he have the stand set alight at the time of a football match?, a day or so later and he could have had an empty stand burning if he did have insurance and wanted it.

 

There is no evidence what so ever that the fire was anything but an accident, there is no evidence at all of arson.

 

It was a horrible disaster down to the poor health and safety standards of the time. People lost their lives on it and now people are using it as a way to point a finger of blame instead of starting to accept what happened and others who are just wanting to make a quick bit of cash by passing the blame on to someone who is dead and can't defend themselves.

Ok for some people accepting what happened isn't easy, but nor is this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Take it all with a pinch of salt. The book is written by someone who wants a direction to point a finger of blame to for their loss.

 

The book is full of stories and wives tales and there is no evidence to back it up. The biggest claim is that the stand was set alight by the chairmen for the insurance money yet the stand wasn't even insured as it was due to be demolished the next day. Also why would he have the stand set alight at the time of a football match?, a day or so later and he could have had an empty stand burning if he did have insurance and wanted it.

 

There is no evidence what so ever that the fire was anything but an accident, there is no evidence at all of arson.

 

It was a horrible disaster down to the poor health and safety standards of the time. People lost their lives on it and now people are using it as a way to point a finger of blame instead of starting to accept what happened and others who are just wanting to make a quick bit of cash by passing the blame on to someone who is dead and can't defend themselves.

Ok for some people accepting what happened isn't easy, but nor is this.

 

Tend to agree with you and hope you are right. The only thing I would say though is it's difficult to blame a cigarette as the cause of the fire if there's nobody in the stand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't imagine anyone planned for the fire to happen with people in the stand but I think the main accusation is that he had previous for fire insurance claims, and as such maybe turned a blind eye to obvious fire precautions such as not letting all that flamable rubbish build up under the stand for so long.

Link to post
Share on other sites

not sure you can ignore the 8 (?) previous fire and insurance claims like but if the stand wasn't insured (seems weird) then i literally makes no sense

 

what would make sense is if it was insured to pay someone to start a fire when it's full of fans to take away the arson element...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Take it all with a pinch of salt. The book is written by someone who wants a direction to point a finger of blame to for their loss.

 

The book is full of stories and wives tales and there is no evidence to back it up. The biggest claim is that the stand was set alight by the chairmen for the insurance money yet the stand wasn't even insured as it was due to be demolished the next day. Also why would he have the stand set alight at the time of a football match?, a day or so later and he could have had an empty stand burning if he did have insurance and wanted it.

 

There is no evidence what so ever that the fire was anything but an accident, there is no evidence at all of arson.

 

It was a horrible disaster down to the poor health and safety standards of the time. People lost their lives on it and now people are using it as a way to point a finger of blame instead of starting to accept what happened and others who are just wanting to make a quick bit of cash by passing the blame on to someone who is dead and can't defend themselves.

Ok for some people accepting what happened isn't easy, but nor is this.

 

Your comment is totally offensive.

 

I stood and watched this fire, my friend was in east stand that day.  One of my neighbours did not make it out. It has taken me and a lot of others years to fully come to terms with what happened.

 

There is no evidence that the fire was started accidentally (you just have not read any report of this have you?) You even state that the article was written by soemone  who wants to make money from this. This comment is so disregarding of all fans who try to seek the truth.

 

You stifler - yes I will name you again have riled my blood. You make offensive and unsubstiantiated accusations about thousands of fans. You really need to use that mass of material confined to your cranium, and not make accusations about men (yes men - not stifling little worms like yourself) who have suffered beyond reason.

 

You also clearly know nothing about Higinbottom at all - yet he was the one who made money from the fire - yet accuse fans (those of us that are reall fdans of this)

 

You disgust me with you ignorant and offensive comments.

 

I hope that I never read one of your comments again.

 

You are not worthy of this fans site or any other, crawl back to your nest

Link to post
Share on other sites

He received no insurance money, what money he did receive was far less than what it cost for the new stand.

 

He may have been guilty of failing to adhere to safety guidelines and such but to say he set the stand alight when people were in it is going a bit far.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest chicken little

at the time, they needed 2m to bring the ground up to scratch, of which 500k was available in grants. the club had no money, was owned by people with no money, and the only alternative was to ground share with bradford northern (thus losing control over the ground, and whatever money had previously been invested therein).

 

it stinks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...