An open letter to Lawro

[Chocoholic]

Powerful and damning. It remains to be seen if it garners any response from the shamed and accused Lawrenson.

 

AN OPEN LETTER TO ‘LAWRO’ // The Anfield Wrap

 

AN OPEN LETTER TO ‘LAWRO’

 

by Kristian Walsh // 5 September 2011 // 42 Comments

<!-- end single-entry-header --> <!-- AddThis Button Begin --> <script type="text/javascript">var addthis_product = 'wpp-261'; var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};</script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/250/addthis_widget.js#pubid=ra-4e401ccf19db0812"></script>“Why can’t the government just say ‘right, here are the facts, here are all the papers,’ and then just let the people make their minds up? Maybe there are lots of people to blame, maybe there are Liverpool supporters to blame, Stephen, and if there are, well, they have to deal with those consequences, but we just basically want to know the truth.”

 

-Mark Lawrenson, BBC FIVE LIVE, 23rd August 2011

You don’t know who I am. In fact, you don’t know who any of us are. But we know who you are.

 

You’re Mark Lawrenson.

 

Maybe you’re that Mark Lawrenson who was omitted from your country’s Euro ’88 squad because Jack Charlton was worried you would steal Mick McCarthy’s wife.

 

Maybe you’re that Mark Lawrenson who was banned from every drinking establishment within a 22 mile radius from Liverpool City Centre for exposing himself to women as they approached the lavatories in every bar on Mathew Street.

Maybe you’re that Mark Lawrenson who pushed a dithering 82-year-old woman – mother, grandmother, sister, friend – under a bus in 1992.

 

If you are, then you’ll have to deal with the consequences.

 

We know you didn’t do any of those things. There’s nowhere, on record, that states you were an adulterer, exhibitionist or murderer. In fact, if Mick McCarthy, Liverpool City Council and the 82-year-old woman – bless her – were asked to refute those accusations, they would.

 

But that didn’t stop you from tarnishing the memory of 96 Liverpool fans who went to watch a football match, never to return; it didn’t stop you uttering the contemplation of attributing blame to Liverpool supporters for the events of April 15 1989 – the same supporters who endure a living hell every day having experienced the darkest day in the club’s history.

And you did this despite what was evidenced in the Taylor Report, despite Lord Justice Taylor’s assertion that fans “were not drunk, nor even worse for drink”. In fact, given you struggle to display even a modicum of intelligence and comprehension on television, here’s some bullet points about what caused the Hillsborough disaster, courtesy of www.constrast.org/hillsborough:

 

1. The immediate cause of the Disaster was the failure to cut off access to the central pens once gate C had been opened. This caused the overcrowding which led to the Disaster.

 

2. The central pens (3 and 4) were already overfull because there was no numerical control of entry nor any effective visual monitoring of crowd density.

 

3. Under the strain of overcrowding in Pen 3, a barrier collapsed, exacerbated by what Taylor referred to as the “sluggish reaction and response when the crush occurred”. Lack of leadership and the small size and number of gates in the perimeter fencing hindered rescue attempts.

 

4. Gate C, an ‘exit’ gate between the inner concourse and the outside, was opened by the police because of the dangerous congestion at the turnstiles. There was no recognition, either by the club or the police, that unless fans arrived steadily over a long, drawn-out period the turnstiles would not be capable of coping with the large numbers involved. This was made worse by the fact that the operational order and police tactics did not consider the possibility of a large concentration of late arrivals.

 

There are no ifs or maybes about it. Liverpool fans were not to blame.

 

Ifs and maybes are not good enough, Lawro. They can’t be used liberally. They do not detach all responsibility to the preceding words.

 

If you’d not been such a dire manager at Oxford United and Peterborough United, would you have the prominence you have now with a platform to proclaim whatever falsehoods you choose? Maybe, instead, you’d merely sit atop of a plastic bucking bronco, legs wrapped its torso, arms around a greasy pole, clinging on to the lower league merry-go-round.

If you never played for Liverpool, would you have your backside imprinted on the Match of the Day sofa? Would anyone care about an ex-Brighton centre-back from the 1970s? It’s hard to imagine Gary Lineker, condescendence dripping from him as much as his spray tan, introducing famous defensive duo Chris Cattlin and Paul Clark as his guests for the week.

Liverpool made you. The club turned you from Mark Lawrenson into the all-singing, all-dancing Lawro that graces the nation’s screens. One half of the Hansen and Lawrenson double act; the pair who won in Rome, the duo who won the double in 1986 and won the league one year conceding just 12 league goals at Anfield.

 

You even have your own cartoon character.

 

That means you’re a custodian to this club and to the people of this city. The man who sits beside you is. Thompson is. Aldridge is. Their thoughts on football matters are irrelevant. They can want Benitez sacked or slate Dirk Kuyt. They’re needed when it matters most – with the greatest respect to both Rafa and Dirk.

 

You just remain silent, or worse, propagate lies on national radio.

 

I remember hearing the comments you made during Anfield’s Truth Day in January 2007 against Arsenal. I stood next to my brother, tears welling inside my eyes as we formed a small dot on the Kop. The collective dots spelt out the one thing we all want: The Truth. Every repetition of Justice for the 96 grew louder, fiercer, angrier. The flame of justice that will never, ever extinguish. Maybe if we shout loud enough, television will hear it; maybe if we shout loud enough, the government will hear it.

 

When I watched the match back after returning home, there it was. Pride welled inside me, much like the tears had hours before. My throat hoarse, my ears strained, I listened to the commentary. Your co-commentator John Motson referenced it; he had to. He couldn’t ignore it.

 

For six minutes, the kick of the ball could not be heard. Arsenal fans, originally – and understandably – getting behind their team, silenced in awe. Justice. That’s all we want, that’s all we ask, and it’s all we can receive with help from the media. Help from people like you.

 

The six minutes stopped; the emotion didn’t. The Kop reverberated around my living room, just as it did around my body at the time. We’d done everyone affected by that tragic day proud.

 

And then came your comment as the noise slowly subsided, one that rankles still to this day. “Perhaps we can get back to the football” you quipped, with that disdainful, expressionless tone.

 

This isn’t about football, Mark. This is about a city – a city who you had the fortune to represent – demanding to know what actually happened that day. A city who demands it for some sort of closure; a city who demands it so their names are no longer tarnished in the eyes of some people, people whose misinformation stems from people such as you. You. A former Liverpool player.

 

And to think you had the temerity and vulgarity to use the disaster to insult Rafael Benitez, a man who has done more for the victim’s families in a few years than you have for the entirety of your television career. All it took that night in January 2007 was a short word; all it took on the radio last week was a simple rebuttal.

 

You’re nothing but a hypocrite. Every single time you sit in your BBC dressing room, staring at the mirror to take part in your famous double act, remember how you got there; remember why you’re not sitting on a coach back to Exeter after a 2-0 defeat away to Hartlepool.

 

Every time a supporter asks you for a photograph or autograph; every time you refer to Liverpool as ‘we’ on television; every time you make personal financial gain by recollecting stories of the 1980s title-winning teams under Paisley and Fagan to a group of teenagers at a sportsman’s dinner, remember this: it’s the badge on the front that matters, not the number on the back – and the Liverbird will never be upon your chest.

 

Your existence as a Liverpool player may be documented on poor quality highlight reels, but that’s all that remains; in the eyes of many, your time on the pitch is a distant memory.

 

You’re no longer Liverpool’s Mark Lawrenson. You never were. You’re Lawro – an embittered, misinformed ingrate who has no respect, nor compassion, for the people of this city.

 

You may have had your hands on the shirt of Liverpool Football Club, but Liverpool Football Club, and its supporters, should wash its hands of you.

 

Yours, with much more sincerity than you can ever muster.

 

Kristian Walsh

[Anubis]

Maybe you’re that Mark Lawrenson who was omitted from your country’s Euro ’88 squad because Jack Charlton was worried you would steal Mick McCarthy’s wife.

 

I'd have thought there was more chance of him trying to steal Mick McCarthy.

[PestiRed]

I'd have thought there was more chance of him trying to steal Mick McCarthy.

 

Wish someone would steal Mick McCarthy, especially if he ever goes near TV commentary again.

[Anubis]

[dalglish2rush]

Well said kristian, cant stand lawrenson, never has a good word to say about us. And even when we have a good result and he has to say good

Things its through gritted teeth.

I think he is the only former lfc player i hate.

[Silvah]

I think he is the only former lfc player i hate.

 

Neil Ruddock? Diouf?

[Code]

If I`m honest I dont think there was anything wrong with Lawrensons comments, but I guess you have to be able to understand what he actually said though to not get wound up.

[ChicagoRed]

Well said, Kristian - there are no grounds for even a hint of what he is trying to say. Too much "mud" from too many sources - trusted and despicable - has stuck without a shadow of truth to it.

 

He should avoid adding to the baseless and outright slander and innuendo by even raising the possibility. His comments are mealy mouthed and cowardly.

 

If he harbors any doubts, have the balls to so and why. If not, why mention the possibility?

[Code]

I dont think he has any doubs at all and nothing he said in the article/interview that led to this "open letter" suggest he has either.

 

But like in every aspect of life its possible to find what you are looking for if you look hard enough.

[2pak]

If I`m honest I dont think there was anything wrong with Lawrensons comments, but I guess you have to be able to understand what he actually said though to not get wound up.

 

Based purely on the quotations in the article I'm inclined to agree. Problem is this is a very emotive subject and courts scrutiny and sometimes over reaction. If you are already not popular it doesn't help.

[Code]

Based purely on the quotations in the article I'm inclined to agree. Problem is this is a very emotive subject and courts scrutiny and sometimes over reaction. If you are already not popular it doesn't help.

 

Thats sure, he probably could have worded it a bit different but in main he was saying he wanted every rock turned so there would never be any doubts about what went wrong and who was to blame for it.

 

How anyone can see that as a bad thing I`ll never know, especially from those who lost their loved ones in the tragedy or those who were there themselves.

[RoboRiise]

Maybe there are lots of people to blame, maybe there are Liverpool supporters to blame, Stephen, and if there are, well, they have to deal with those consequences, but we just basically want to know the truth.

 

 

I think I have a good enough grasp of English to understand the comment above, thanks. Unlike some on here I won't have a pop at you for no reason Frode but especially in this thread, that was patronising beyond belief. Not a huge deal for me, just saying.

 

So if I've interpreted his comments correctly, he's presenting a a couple of of entirely hypothetical examples of what could be revealed in the evidence that is still to be made public and using them to illustrate the point that after over 20 years of unanswered questions, getting the truth, no matter what it may be, is the most important thing. Essentially, he's saying that regardless of what might be revealed it's better that it finally comes into the light than it remaining hidden. I agree.

 

The problem is that he uses the word 'blame'. The fundamental cause of the disaster, the 'blame' for it, isn't something that anyone, let alone a former player, should really be suggesting hypothetical explanations for, even if merely to illustrate a point because they are already very well know, having been fully documented in one of the most exhaustive reviews of a football incident ever to be undertaken. My understanding was that the evidence that's supposedly to be released does not relate to new information about the basic causes of the disaster (the 'blame' for it), but about what happened after the cut-off time in the original inquests, what the government of the day's initial reaction was (pre-Taylor) and so on. If nothing else, his comments show an almost bewildering lack of sensitivity even by the standards of Lawrenson, a man who it seems has at least one foot permanently jammed firmly in his mouth.

 

The only other possible interpretation I could see (and I'd need his comments to be placed in the context of the whole conversation to determine whether there's any validity in this) is that the 'blame' he's talking about there is the blame for some of the information remaining undisclosed for so long, or the blame for the current controversy about whether it should all be released, rather than the blame for the incident itself.

 

Neither of those seem especially realistic to me, nor are they any more palatable if he was attempting to present them as hypothetical scenarios or even just using them to illustrate a point. Lawrenson must be well aware of how emotive a subject Hillsborough is to our fans and I would have thought anyone with a modicum of intelligence, let alone a former Liverpool player who has since had a long career in the media, would have sufficient self-awareness to realise that those comments, even if said with the best of intentions, were never likely to be well-received.

 

Whenever something like this is brought to my attention, the first thing I ask myself is 'did he need to say it?' In this case, the answer to that question is clearly no because if you remove the controversial part of the comment, leaving something like this:

 

Maybe there are lots of people to blame and they will have to deal with the consequences of that, but we just basically want to know the truth.

 

I think you'll agree that the meaning, along with the point I think he was trying to make, is completely unchanged. I haven't had the benefit of years of media experience, I'm just some blert who works in an office, so if I can see that why the hell can't he?

 

For what it's worth, I don't happen to believe that Lawrenson was trying to cast doubt on the actions of our fans at all. I think the truth is far simpler and less dramatic, namely that he's as thick as pigshit and sometimes he just can't stop his mouth from working even when his brain has stopped; a lesser variant of whatever problem afflicts Garth Crooks.

 

When he's belming on about some tactical nuance of Coventry City's play in an FA Cup fourth round match, that aspect of his character is a minor irritation. Sadly, when it comes to a subject as raw as Hillsborough his inability to self-censor presents greater problems.

[Major Tom]

Kristian's open letter would be far, far more powerful without the seemingly bitter - and definitely embarrassing - personal insults towards Lawrenson.

[Pidge]

I think Lawro is a victim of his own persona and lets his mouth run away without thinking at times. His comment was worse in 2007. Stupider, but also not malicious.

[piscinin]

I think I have a good enough grasp of English to understand the comment above

.

.

.

 

I think you can come up with a far more charitable interpretation if you play the role of the average, uninformed non-liverpool fan. Who let's remember are as much Lawrenson's audience as we are. To them the question of blame is still in play. You only have to think back to that whole Cohen episode to understand that. He's referenced that point of view not because he believes it, but just because it's out there IMO.

[stevienando]

Very powerful message, and well-delivered. Lawrenson is a symbol of the apathetic, unsympathetic, ill-informed, conceited, condescending media personality.

[Coro]

If I`m honest I dont think there was anything wrong with Lawrensons comments, but I guess you have to be able to understand what he actually said though to not get wound up.

 

I guess the reason why i viewed your post is because the last time i saw you posting in a thread relating to Hillsborough, palm met face.

 

That queasy feeling is back again.

 

As said above, this is a very sensitive issue and decent folk will look to tread carefully whereas the likes of you and Lawrenson..... well, you're more concerned with other things, aren't you.

[Code]

 

So if I've interpreted his comments correctly, he's presenting a a couple of of entirely hypothetical examples of what could be revealed in the evidence that is still to be made public and using them to illustrate the point that after over 20 years of unanswered questions, getting the truth, no matter what it may be, is the most important thing. Essentially, he's saying that regardless of what might be revealed it's better that it finally comes into the light than it remaining hidden. I agree.

 

I think you'll agree that the meaning, along with the point I think he was trying to make, is completely unchanged. I haven't had the benefit of years of media experience, I'm just some blert who works in an office, so if I can see that why the hell can't he?

 

For what it's worth, I don't happen to believe that Lawrenson was trying to cast doubt on the actions of our fans at all. I think the truth is far simpler and less dramatic, namely that he's as thick as pigshit and sometimes he just can't stop his mouth from working even when his brain has stopped; a lesser variant of whatever problem afflicts Garth Crooks.

 

So you and me agree then about Lawrensons intentions and the meaning behind his words, but like I said he could have worded it differently.

 

I think the open letter was an embarrassment though, as you get the feeling the writer did not really grasp the meaning behind Lawrensons words and what he tried to say.

[Juan Galonso]

I guess the reason why i viewed your post is because the last time i saw you posting in a thread relating to Hillsborough, palm met face.

 

That queasy feeling is back again.

 

As said above, this is a very sensitive issue and decent folk will look to tread carefully whereas the likes of you and Lawrenson..... well, you're more concerned with other things, aren't you.

 

Just out of curiosity Coro what are these other things that you speak of that Code and Lawrenson are more concerned with?

 

Just seems a bit of a throwaway comment and I'm just interested what it means thanks.

[Guest SpiderLucas]

Thats sure, he probably could have worded it a bit different but in main he was saying he wanted every rock turned so there would never be any doubts about what went wrong and who was to blame for it.

 

How anyone can see that as a bad thing I`ll never know, especially from those who lost their loved ones in the tragedy or those who were there themselves.

 

ALL Liverpool fans want the same thing, Liverpool fans from Croxteth, Liverpool fans from Denmark, Liverpool fans that were a mere twinkle in there parents eyes when the tragedy happened, Liverpool fans who lost loved ones in the tragedy or Liverpool fans who were there themselves all unite for Justice.

[Guest simon]

If I`m honest I dont think there was anything wrong with Lawrensons comments, but I guess you have to be able to understand what he actually said though to not get wound up.

 

I actually agree he has a problem of not thinking before he speaks. Still a prick though.

[Antynwa]

Badly worded.

 

Thats all.

[Guest simon]

 

So basically everyone who doesn't agree with your point of view is a thick cunt???

 

Condescending beyond belief you are frode!

 

I think he means most people would pick out certain bits together. And hear what they want to selective hearing. Or reading its very common and doesn't make anyone less knowlegable. Just means your brain is working too fast.

[Christian]

It was a typically crass Lawro comment. Total bellend.

 

Not having this "unfortunate use of words" argument either.

[Whelan]

If I`m honest I dont think there was anything wrong with Lawrensons comments, but I guess you have to be able to understand what he actually said though to not get wound up.

 

I dont think he has any doubs at all and nothing he said in the article/interview that led to this "open letter" suggest he has either.

 

But like in every aspect of life its possible to find what you are looking for if you look hard enough.

 

I think he means most people would pick out certain bits together. And hear what they want to selective hearing. Or reading its very common and doesn't make anyone less knowlegable. Just means your brain is working too fast.

 

Sorry Simon, he was being incredibly condescending and as usual, ignorant of any opposing views. Alternatively if, like Lawrenson you are unable to articulate your opinion in such as ways so as to not cause offence, then shut up and say nothing!