Words failed us

I did not intend to comment on Rod Sweet’s thought-provoking article on the renaissance of Liverpool (Cover story, CM, October) as I had hoped that the main thrust of his critique would stimulate debate about construction-related development in urban areas. However, the totally unnecessary reference to the Hillsborough disaster was reiterated in a letter in October’s ‘Mailbox’, where it was argued that the deaths of 96 innocent people in Sheffield was somehow a catalyst for regeneration in Liverpool.

This comment stems from the special report by Construction Manager titled ‘Scouse honour’ which described the City’s ‘ignominy’ in its reaction to Hillsborough, which it was claimed, typified Liverpool’s misfortunes.

Ignominy indeed. There was no humiliation regarding the Hillsborough disaster; there was no embarrassment, no disgrace, no dishonour, and no discredit. Why should there have been when a city had been devastated by such unnecessary loss of life? Certainly there was an outpouring of grief, sadness and anger (mainly at the right-wing press that tried to blame Liverpool supporters for the disaster), but no ignominy. It is a pity that a report, which was primarily based around how construction is being used as a catalyst for change in a city embracing its renaissance, has been hijacked by some ill-conceived words.