I guess the difference is with things like Hillsborough there's been people saying right from the very beginning that the 'official' version just didn't explain everything properly and couldn't be the whole truth (obviously not everyone realised just what a hatchet job it turned out to be.) In this case the investigation and what people knew about it meant that yes it really could just have been a really tragic accident... unless you knew about the other eight fires, which weren't common knowledge and the investigation just plain missed or ignored. He's not exactly a 'random guy' either, he's got a very personal interest in getting his version of events told and presumably had to do a fair amount of digging to get at the facts as he presents them. No-one else realised/cared there was anything to look FOR.
If I thought that I had discovered that the reason 3 of my family had died in circumstances like he says, and the fella who done it was dead already, I don't think I'd write a book before I got it investigated by the ob proven and then have it exposed properly,
The facts regarding this are now very easily verified. I doubt that this is a conspiracy theory dreamt up by the author. Odd though that once a pattern started to emerge that he didn't get the police involved although perhaps he tried and was not taken seriously. It's not like the Yorkshire Police havn't got a track record of corruption, negligence and incompetence.
Eight accidental fires! You would have thought that he would have been a world expert on what can go wrong and would not have let a build up of rubbish happen: or he was a world expert on how to set a fire to look like an accident and not get caught. Eight accidental fires! - I have enough trouble lighting a barbecue with firelighters and matches!
The fire would have to happen on a match day (no pun intended) for the cigarette end to drop through and ignite the rubbish as an empty stand is not going to combust on it's own. So IF you were going to set a fire, it would have to happen on a match day to be believed.
An electrical fire would be the an option on a non match day to a would be arsonist looking for an insurance pay out. Not a good option as negligence would be an issue and it would be difficult to ensure the whole stand would go up.
It would be interesting to know more about the other eight fires. Were insurance claims filed, did the police know about the other fires, did the insurance company for Bradford know?
The facts regarding this are now very easily verified. I doubt that this is a conspiracy theory dreamt up by the author. Odd though that once a pattern started to emerge that he didn't get the police involved although perhaps he tried and was not taken seriously. It's not like the Yorkshire Police havn't got a track record of corruption, negligence and incompetence.
Yeah, if he's just plain wrong (or lying) then it will be debunked pretty quickly, if he's got a genuine point then others will be able to follow the same process he followed and reach the same conclusions. It does seem at the moment though that with the chairman in question now beyond the reach of any human law nothing else is ever actually going to come of this except hopefully catharsis for those who suffered.
It would be interesting to know more about the other eight fires. Were insurance claims filed, did the police know about the other fires, did the insurance company for Bradford know?
I suppose, from a statistical perspective, one would have to ask - what percentage of establishments catch fire in their lifetime AND result in substantial claims?
Having worked that out on the back of a fag packet I would have to say the former Chairman of Bradford was indeed one unlucky bloke. And the victims of Bradford tragically so.
Will the Establishment now re-open the case? It would be seriously wrong not to because, if it were deliberate, the Chairman simply could not have arranged this on his own.
I suppose we will have to buy the book so we can review the "evidence". If there is more to the Bradford fire surly you would take the evidence to the appropriate people and not write a book first. Or maybe this is his way at drawing attention to the failings of others. Just because there were other fires does not mean there was foul play in any of these. As always all you need for a conspiracy is a story and people who want to believe in it and in this case a book to sell.
surely there would be some kind of enquiry after the first 2 ?
it all beggars belief ....
i have often felt that the Bradford fire has been the overlooked tragedy (compared to Heysel and hillsborough)
however if you did want to prepare for some "jewish lightning" surely youd do this when the ground was empty? maybe having the lightning strike when stand was full provided an alibi ?
anyway god rest the poor souls who died and may their families get appropriate redress and justice if this is so
I would be amazed if Sir Oliver the chair of the enquiry said anything else, after all if he accepted it as true it would mean he was incompetent.
Seems very strange that the enquiry took place only three weeks after the fire, it makes you wonder how much investigation went into things like whether the Chairman of the club was exceptionally unlucky when it came to fires.
Would be interested to know what the "many reasons" are.
"The retired judge said the main flaw in the argument that the fire was arson was that the stand involved had no insurance value because it was due for demolition." - that's a pretty compelling one.
Would be interested to know what the "many reasons" are.
"The retired judge said the main flaw in the argument that the fire was arson was that the stand involved had no insurance value because it was due for demolition." - that's a pretty compelling one.
Would be interested to know what the "many reasons" are.
"The retired judge said the main flaw in the argument that the fire was arson was that the stand involved had no insurance value because it was due for demolition." - that's a pretty compelling one.
Missed that, thank you for pointing it out. The following is a quote from Fletcher's book published in The Guardian, which clearly doesn't tie in with what Sir Oliver says:
"The real joke was that his next fire, which killed 56 people, resulted in Bradford City receiving insurance proceeds and associated grants of £988,000. In today’s adjusted terms that’s £7m. It’s also a bit of a joke that, back in 1985, nobody picked up on the fact that Heginbotham – seemingly a one-man walking nightmare for insurance companies – had already recouped nearly a million pounds (£10m in today’s terms) before his club was rewarded with the further gift of £1.46m (worth £10.25m in today’s money) by the local authority..."
But why do this during a match, putting thousands of innocent people at risk and running the risk of a mass murder charge? That part doesn't make sense to me............
But why do this during a match, putting thousands of innocent people at risk and running the risk of a mass murder charge? That part doesn't make sense to me............
Unless this is pure fantasy then there should at least be a review
But why do this during a match, putting thousands of innocent people at risk and running the risk of a mass murder charge? That part doesn't make sense to me............
Potential for a cause that could be blamed, anyone could be the person who dropped the match/fag etc.
There's other things as well which don't add up.
Extract from another story on the guardian website -
Then there are the unanswered questions about why, according to Fletcher’s research, gates at the back of the main stand had been unlocked much earlier than usual that day, contrary to normal policy (tragically, the presence of padlocks initially gave the people inside the stand the impression they were trapped). But if those gates had been locked, he estimates the death toll would have been in the hundreds.
Would be interested to know what the "many reasons" are.
"The retired judge said the main flaw in the argument that the fire was arson was that the stand involved had no insurance value because it was due for demolition." - that's a pretty compelling one.
Missed that, thank you for pointing it out. The following is a quote from Fletcher's book published in The Guardian, which clearly doesn't tie in with what Sir Oliver says:
"The real joke was that his next fire, which killed 56 people, resulted in Bradford City receiving insurance proceeds and associated grants of £988,000. In today’s adjusted terms that’s £7m. It’s also a bit of a joke that, back in 1985, nobody picked up on the fact that Heginbotham – seemingly a one-man walking nightmare for insurance companies – had already recouped nearly a million pounds (£10m in today’s terms) before his club was rewarded with the further gift of £1.46m (worth £10.25m in today’s money) by the local authority..."
The judge is talking rubbish then, and that's really, really suspect.
Would be interested to know what the "many reasons" are.
"The retired judge said the main flaw in the argument that the fire was arson was that the stand involved had no insurance value because it was due for demolition." - that's a pretty compelling one.
Missed that, thank you for pointing it out. The following is a quote from Fletcher's book published in The Guardian, which clearly doesn't tie in with what Sir Oliver says:
"The real joke was that his next fire, which killed 56 people, resulted in Bradford City receiving insurance proceeds and associated grants of £988,000. In today’s adjusted terms that’s £7m. It’s also a bit of a joke that, back in 1985, nobody picked up on the fact that Heginbotham – seemingly a one-man walking nightmare for insurance companies – had already recouped nearly a million pounds (£10m in today’s terms) before his club was rewarded with the further gift of £1.46m (worth £10.25m in today’s money) by the local authority..."
The judge is talking rubbish then, and that's really, really suspect.
Well certainly either the judge is talking rubbish, or Fletcher has twisted the facts to suit his own agenda.
To figure out which, you'd need to know how much of the various money received by Bradford City could have been anticipated in advance of the fire. For example, would Heginbotham have known that the club would receive a £1.46m gift from the local authority? If he wouldn't have known that then the fact they received it is irrelevant.
I would like to think this is a bit of a conspiracy theory by someone who happens to have a book to sell. Back in the late sixties and seventies fire safety in factories were not as good as the could have been. Could be a bit circumstantial and were all the fire total losses or suspicious? Also I cant really see a chairman of a football club clambering around under a stand (in the middle of a match) lighting rubbish. As I have said, I would like to think its a bit of a conspiracy theory because if it isn't and proven to be true, there will be people other than the chairman that need to be held accountable and there will be loads of them.
It's the sheer number that make it seem so improbable. With the lower standards, maybe one or two other fires could be seen as just bad luck. But this many? No, they can't all be coincidental. And I don't think the theory is that anyone deliberately set the fire that day, simply that he knew full well it was a fire hazard but left it as it was, gambling with fans' lives that the fire would happen when no-one was around and could be written off under insurance.
It's a grim old world we live in, that's for damn sure.
I'm not so sure. The book claims he had been told 2 days earlier that he needed to spend £2m to get the ground up to scratch. Seems too much of a coincidence doesn't it, given the previous record? And of course happening at a match means he could blame it on a cigarette and an accident waiting to happen.
Coincidence is always a possibility, but it if looks like a duck...
I would like to think this is a bit of a conspiracy theory by someone who happens to have a book to sell. Back in the late sixties and seventies fire safety in factories were not as good as the could have been. Could be a bit circumstantial and were all the fire total losses or suspicious? Also I cant really see a chairman of a football club clambering around under a stand (in the middle of a match) lighting rubbish. As I have said, I would like to think its a bit of a conspiracy theory because if it isn't and proven to be true, there will be people other than the chairman that need to be held accountable and there will be loads of them.
It's the sheer number that make it seem so improbable. With the lower standards, maybe one or two other fires could be seen as just bad luck. But this many? No, they can't all be coincidental. And I don't think the theory is that anyone deliberately set the fire that day, simply that he knew full well it was a fire hazard but left it as it was, gambling with fans' lives that the fire would happen when no-one was around and could be written off under insurance.
It's a grim old world we live in, that's for damn sure.
I'm not so sure. The book claims he had been told 2 days earlier that he needed to spend £2m to get the ground up to scratch. Seems too much of a coincidence doesn't it, given the previous record? And of course happening at a match means he could blame it on a cigarette and an accident waiting to happen.
Coincidence is always a possibility, but it if looks like a duck...
Granted, but I just don't want to think that anyone could set that fire on purpose knowing there were innocent fans some of whom would surely die even if just in the panic. Knowing a fire was possible was greedy and irresponsible and immoral, but setting a fire on purpose? That's just plain evil, if true.
Would be interested to know what the "many reasons" are.
"The retired judge said the main flaw in the argument that the fire was arson was that the stand involved had no insurance value because it was due for demolition." - that's a pretty compelling one.
Missed that, thank you for pointing it out. The following is a quote from Fletcher's book published in The Guardian, which clearly doesn't tie in with what Sir Oliver says:
"The real joke was that his next fire, which killed 56 people, resulted in Bradford City receiving insurance proceeds and associated grants of £988,000. In today’s adjusted terms that’s £7m. It’s also a bit of a joke that, back in 1985, nobody picked up on the fact that Heginbotham – seemingly a one-man walking nightmare for insurance companies – had already recouped nearly a million pounds (£10m in today’s terms) before his club was rewarded with the further gift of £1.46m (worth £10.25m in today’s money) by the local authority..."
I'd love to know where he get's his numbers from. Using the Bank of England calculator for inflation says that £1.64m in 1985 is worth £4.44m today (well in 2014 and we have negative inflation currently).
Talk about bumping up the numbers.
I fear that this book was released, opposed to having the evidence passed the the appropriate authorities, so that he can sell more books. Never is there a greater demand than when it is about a suggestion that football fans have been lied about to a tragedy.
This, like the Hillsborough disaster, can come to no good. We cannot get those back that died, and everything that could possibly be done to stop it happening again has been done - as a cost of hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of pounds.
The chap under the spotlight has died. That means that he can't defend himself, and even if it can be proved, in his absence, that he was in any way responsible what can be done about it?
I know I'm cynical but this just looks like a way for the chap to make money. It is terribly sad that his life was blighted by this tragedy and I can't begin to imagine what mental anguish he mush have gone through for most of his life, but the only benefit of releasing this book is financial - in my view.
Would be interested to know what the "many reasons" are.
"The retired judge said the main flaw in the argument that the fire was arson was that the stand involved had no insurance value because it was due for demolition." - that's a pretty compelling one.
Missed that, thank you for pointing it out. The following is a quote from Fletcher's book published in The Guardian, which clearly doesn't tie in with what Sir Oliver says:
"The real joke was that his next fire, which killed 56 people, resulted in Bradford City receiving insurance proceeds and associated grants of £988,000. In today’s adjusted terms that’s £7m. It’s also a bit of a joke that, back in 1985, nobody picked up on the fact that Heginbotham – seemingly a one-man walking nightmare for insurance companies – had already recouped nearly a million pounds (£10m in today’s terms) before his club was rewarded with the further gift of £1.46m (worth £10.25m in today’s money) by the local authority..."
I'd love to know where he get's his numbers from. Using the Bank of England calculator for inflation says that £1.64m in 1985 is worth £4.44m today (well in 2014 and we have negative inflation currently).
Talk about bumping up the numbers.
I fear that this book was released, opposed to having the evidence passed the the appropriate authorities, so that he can sell more books. Never is there a greater demand than when it is about a suggestion that football fans have been lied about to a tragedy.
This, like the Hillsborough disaster, can come to no good. We cannot get those back that died, and everything that could possibly be done to stop it happening again has been done - as a cost of hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of pounds.
The chap under the spotlight has died. That means that he can't defend himself, and even if it can be proved, in his absence, that he was in any way responsible what can be done about it?
I know I'm cynical but this just looks like a way for the chap to make money. It is terribly sad that his life was blighted by this tragedy and I can't begin to imagine what mental anguish he mush have gone through for most of his life, but the only benefit of releasing this book is financial - in my view.
8 fires though ? if my daughter/son/father had died in that fire id want to know the whole truth and nothing but whenever if came out
Would be interested to know what the "many reasons" are.
"The retired judge said the main flaw in the argument that the fire was arson was that the stand involved had no insurance value because it was due for demolition." - that's a pretty compelling one.
Missed that, thank you for pointing it out. The following is a quote from Fletcher's book published in The Guardian, which clearly doesn't tie in with what Sir Oliver says:
"The real joke was that his next fire, which killed 56 people, resulted in Bradford City receiving insurance proceeds and associated grants of £988,000. In today’s adjusted terms that’s £7m. It’s also a bit of a joke that, back in 1985, nobody picked up on the fact that Heginbotham – seemingly a one-man walking nightmare for insurance companies – had already recouped nearly a million pounds (£10m in today’s terms) before his club was rewarded with the further gift of £1.46m (worth £10.25m in today’s money) by the local authority..."
I'd love to know where he get's his numbers from. Using the Bank of England calculator for inflation says that £1.64m in 1985 is worth £4.44m today (well in 2014 and we have negative inflation currently).
Talk about bumping up the numbers.
I fear that this book was released, opposed to having the evidence passed the the appropriate authorities, so that he can sell more books. Never is there a greater demand than when it is about a suggestion that football fans have been lied about to a tragedy.
This, like the Hillsborough disaster, can come to no good. We cannot get those back that died, and everything that could possibly be done to stop it happening again has been done - as a cost of hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of pounds.
The chap under the spotlight has died. That means that he can't defend himself, and even if it can be proved, in his absence, that he was in any way responsible what can be done about it?
I know I'm cynical but this just looks like a way for the chap to make money. It is terribly sad that his life was blighted by this tragedy and I can't begin to imagine what mental anguish he mush have gone through for most of his life, but the only benefit of releasing this book is financial - in my view.
There's cynical and there's callous KHA. I know this guy as I worked with him for a number of years and I've just had lunch with him as he was interviewed by Jeremy Vine for his radio 2 show and B.H is just over the road from the office.
Now don't get me wrong, I have always thought the author was a complete and utter twat and lunch has not changed my opinion however I can state quite conclusively that money has never been his driving force. He is a Chartered Accountant who gave up a good living here in order to pursue what I can only call an obsession i.e telling his story and the story of the day and his subsequent investigations.
Having said all that obsession might be a strong term but for me personally, I could not be arsed to carry this or any other torch for thirty years. That probably says more about me than anyone else but no matter how many generations of family I lost, what's done is done and I see no point in keep rehashing things.
Interestingly, he doesn't want an enquiry or compo. He simply wants to tell the story of his life's work. As I said I think he's a first class twat but I do assure you that monetary reward is a long way from his thinking and thus far has not been forthcoming.
I'm not shocked if this incident was shuffled away, without a thorough investigation. Along with Hillsborough, it just made it easy for Thatchers Army to sterilise our stadiums without the common folk putting up too much of a fight.................
Comments
The fire would have to happen on a match day (no pun intended) for the cigarette end to drop through and ignite the rubbish as an empty stand is not going to combust on it's own. So IF you were going to set a fire, it would have to happen on a match day to be believed.
An electrical fire would be the an option on a non match day to a would be arsonist looking for an insurance pay out. Not a good option as negligence would be an issue and it would be difficult to ensure the whole stand would go up.
It would be interesting to know more about the other eight fires. Were insurance claims filed, did the police know about the other fires, did the insurance company for Bradford know?
The chairman made an absolute fortune from the insurance payouts. Some of the previous fires weren't investigated due to a firefighters' strike.
Having worked that out on the back of a fag packet I would have to say the former Chairman of Bradford was indeed one unlucky bloke. And the victims of Bradford tragically so.
Will the Establishment now re-open the case? It would be seriously wrong not to because, if it were deliberate, the Chairman simply could not have arranged this on his own.
If there is more to the Bradford fire surly you would take the evidence to the appropriate people and not write a book first. Or maybe this is his way at drawing attention to the failings of others.
Just because there were other fires does not mean there was foul play in any of these.
As always all you need for a conspiracy is a story and people who want to believe in it and in this case a book to sell.
Speaking to BBC Radio Leeds, Sir Oliver said: "I'm sorry to spoil what is obviously a very good story, I'm afraid is nonsense for many reasons."
Would be interested to know what the "many reasons" are.
but 8 fires before this one ?
surely there would be some kind of enquiry after the first 2 ?
it all beggars belief ....
i have often felt that the Bradford fire has been the overlooked tragedy (compared to Heysel and hillsborough)
however if you did want to prepare for some "jewish lightning" surely youd do this when the ground was empty? maybe having the lightning strike when stand was full provided an alibi ?
anyway god rest the poor souls who died and may their families get appropriate redress and justice if this is so
Seems very strange that the enquiry took place only three weeks after the fire, it makes you wonder how much investigation went into things like whether the Chairman of the club was exceptionally unlucky when it came to fires.
"The real joke was that his next fire, which killed 56 people, resulted in Bradford City receiving insurance proceeds and associated grants of £988,000. In today’s adjusted terms that’s £7m. It’s also a bit of a joke that, back in 1985, nobody picked up on the fact that Heginbotham – seemingly a one-man walking nightmare for insurance companies – had already recouped nearly a million pounds (£10m in today’s terms) before his club was rewarded with the further gift of £1.46m (worth £10.25m in today’s money) by the local authority..."
There's other things as well which don't add up.
Extract from another story on the guardian website -
Then there are the unanswered questions about why, according to Fletcher’s research, gates at the back of the main stand had been unlocked much earlier than usual that day, contrary to normal policy (tragically, the presence of padlocks initially gave the people inside the stand the impression they were trapped). But if those gates had been locked, he estimates the death toll would have been in the hundreds.
To figure out which, you'd need to know how much of the various money received by Bradford City could have been anticipated in advance of the fire. For example, would Heginbotham have known that the club would receive a £1.46m gift from the local authority? If he wouldn't have known that then the fact they received it is irrelevant.
Looks well dodgy, need more information though.
Coincidence is always a possibility, but it if looks like a duck...
http://mag.digitalpc.co.uk/olive/ode/infochem/LandingPage/LandingPage.aspx?href=SU5GT0NIb2RlLzIwMTAvMDkvMDE.&pageno=Mg..&entity=QXIwMDIwMA..&view=ZW50aXR5
Talk about bumping up the numbers.
I fear that this book was released, opposed to having the evidence passed the the appropriate authorities, so that he can sell more books. Never is there a greater demand than when it is about a suggestion that football fans have been lied about to a tragedy.
This, like the Hillsborough disaster, can come to no good. We cannot get those back that died, and everything that could possibly be done to stop it happening again has been done - as a cost of hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of pounds.
The chap under the spotlight has died. That means that he can't defend himself, and even if it can be proved, in his absence, that he was in any way responsible what can be done about it?
I know I'm cynical but this just looks like a way for the chap to make money. It is terribly sad that his life was blighted by this tragedy and I can't begin to imagine what mental anguish he mush have gone through for most of his life, but the only benefit of releasing this book is financial - in my view.
Now don't get me wrong, I have always thought the author was a complete and utter twat and lunch has not changed my opinion however I can state quite conclusively that money has never been his driving force. He is a Chartered Accountant who gave up a good living here in order to pursue what I can only call an obsession i.e telling his story and the story of the day and his subsequent investigations.
Having said all that obsession might be a strong term but for me personally, I could not be arsed to carry this or any other torch for thirty years. That probably says more about me than anyone else but no matter how many generations of family I lost, what's done is done and I see no point in keep rehashing things.
Interestingly, he doesn't want an enquiry or compo. He simply wants to tell the story of his life's work. As I said I think he's a first class twat but I do assure you that monetary reward is a long way from his thinking and thus far has not been forthcoming.