This is what happens when you mock the Hillsborough dead

[Image: @khfc_laura/Twitter.]

[Image: @khfc_laura/Twitter.]

A Worcester man named Paul Grange has been bombarded with unwanted… presents… and is facing charges under the Public Order Act after he went out wearing a T-shirt that insults the Hillsborough dead.

This man was photographed wearing the shirt, which had the words “Hillsborough – Gods way of helping Rentokill” (sic) emblazoned across the back.

Shortly afterwards, both the photograph and his address appeared on the social media, and the festivities began.

According to a recent Facebook post, Paul Grange has received – let’s call them – gifts including, among other things, takeaway meals delivered in the early hours of the morning, visits from clowns, male escorts and a Stevie Wonder lookalike, cement mixers and cranes booked in his name, 50 bags of manure, 600 Viagra pills, more than £100 worth of Lilt, and a visit from the police.

He has also been barred from his local pub, which one presumes is where the photograph was taken.

While these actions are not to be applauded (apart from the arrest), one can sympathise entirely with the outrage that prompted them.

A man has been charged with a public order offence in relation to an offensive Hillsborough T-Shirt.

Paul Grange, 50, from Worcester, was charged today with a Section 5 Public Order Offence relating to the display of threatening and abusive sign and writing, likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.

He has been released on bail to appear at Worcester Magistrates’ Court on a date in July.

Source: Man charged over offensive Hillsborough T-shirt – Liverpool Echo


Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:


15 thoughts on “This is what happens when you mock the Hillsborough dead

  1. chris

    its a pity the coppers aint so quick to arrest theWestminster Paedophiles or the Tory’s on election fraud Hey?

  2. Roy Beiley

    What sort of person would think he could do that and there would be no consequences? Social media lookouts are everywhere. Either he has no moral compass or he wants to be infamous.

  3. philipburdekin

    What an evil a***hole, I hope they throw him in jail and the throw the key in a drain.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      I don’t think there will ever be a right time for that sort of comment.

  4. wildswimmerpete

    I understand that Stobarts, Grange’s employer, is investigating his behaviour. As someone who lives in the Greater Liverpool region, slurs on the memories of the 96 don’t go down very well. I suspect that Grange, an HGV driver, would be best advised to avoid Liverpool in future.

  5. samspruce

    I am getting increasingly concerned about the ease with which the hue and cry is capturing everyone’s attention. It feels like the beginnings of mass hysteria. Of course I understand the objection. The text on the man’s shirt is overtly unpleasant and insulting and maybe warrants some reply or analysis. But if hating someone is reason to arrest them we are in serious trouble. David Cameron wants to silence dissenters; in his own words this includes “The peddling of lies: that 9/11 was a Jewish plot or that the 7/7 London attacks were staged.” There is more to say than can easily be put succinctly, but when we support and even insist on arresting people for their words because we are afraid of potential action we are heading down the road of the thought police. The profound concept of freedom of expression is not a pretty thing or an easy thing to live with; that is why it is so important to defend it. Has anyone noticed that the message “God’s way of helping to kill vermin” is exactly what this government is engaged in with their Austerity ideology and what Israel is doing to the Palestinians? Using some notion of God to justify their good intentions whilst the consequences are to destroy the underclass. How come we call on them, the hierarchical oppressive authorities, to arrest this man? They love it – they want scapegoats – they want the rabble to support their authority and punitive control. There is something very insidious in this whole episode. I suspect sending clowns and cases of lilt is a better reaction that arresting the man. And by all means react to my comments by calling me anti-Semitic – oh no – wrong subject area. To make it clear: I don’t agree with or like the sentiment expressed – I am concerned about the momentum to demonise the man to the point of attempting to rub out the opinion as if it never existed and absolutely no one will be tolerated in our club if they even think such dreadful things.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      It may be a public order offence because the words on his shirt were likely to be interpreted as threatening, abusive or insulting within the sight of people likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress by it. This man wasn’t arrested because other people hate him, but because his shirt constitutes hate speech against the dead.
      Your own comment does indeed include hate speech against the Jews (as a race) and Israel (as a country) – unless you can provide proof that all Jews took part in the 9/11 attacks? If not, that’s plain and simple anti-Semitism which is a crime in its own right, in some countries. Your attempt to excuse yourself at the end of your comment is insincere, considering your earlier choice of words.
      Your argument that the “authorities” want the “rabble” to support their “punitive control” is based on a false assumption. We have laws, and we expect the “authorities” to enforce them for the good of society as a whole. This is an example of them doing so – not part of some overarching strategy of oppression.
      Freedom of speech and expression is important; it is equally important that it should not be abused.

      1. samspruce

        You confuse me Mike. You say “Your own comment does indeed include hate speech against the Jews”. I either misunderstand you or I will ask for a simple retraction of that personal accusation. The only reference to Jews was quoted from David Cameron’s speech at the UN in 2014 . As far as I understand him he used the word “Jewish” specifically to afford the justification for calling it anti-Semitic thereby manoeuvring the listener to your expressed opinion of agreeing with him. But read the rest of that statement “… or that the 7/7 London attacks were staged.” That is blatantly pushing the boundaries to “anything we don’t want you to say”. And we know where this illegitimate thinking has taken us even to the point of Caroline Lucas being put on a “terrorist” list by the “authorities” (whichever one’s you like, be it the government or the police) or, if you don’t like The Argus, try that bastion of reliable reporting the BBC . My reference to calling me anti-Semitic was a tongue in cheek reference (but valid point) to the common convenient but illegitimate counter accusations of that ilk in circumstances where one reasonably criticises the State of Israel. I do find the evolving conceptual paradigms of this government, the USA and Israel very worrisome. To be explicit I thought I was simplifying (with a well understood example) the pre-emptive refutation of the argument that could be raised that I somehow agreed with the assumed intended meaning of the words on the guy’s shirt. I suspect your pursuit of the reductionist detail to ensure you are “correct” is slightly out of balance with the bigger picture of the system as a whole. I see a potential paradox in the subject trying to make the authority act correctly when it is inherently the case that the authority is attempting to make the subject act correctly. But there lies a possible impossibility. And you also make a deliberate, if subtle, attempt to besmirch me when you accuse me of an “attempt to excuse” myself. I have re-read what I wrote and I fail to see any “attempt to excuse”. If I am being too explicit or even too diplomatic I’m sorry you see it as a failure (reminder: your word “attempt”). Incidentally, have you also missed the irony of the message on the t-shirt? It is one way of expressing the evidenced views of the authorities (the police, the government and the main stream media). Another irony being to expect the authorities to sort this out.

      2. Mike Sivier Post author

        “David Cameron wants to silence dissenters; in his own words this includes ‘The peddling of lies: that 9/11 was a Jewish plot or that the 7/7 London attacks were staged.'” – Implying that it isn’t a lie that 9/11 was a Jewish plot.
        In your comment here, you go on: “That is blatantly pushing the boundaries to ‘anything we don’t want you to say’.” So you want to say 9/11 was a Jewish plot? Otherwise, why mention that example?
        “Has anyone noticed that the message “God’s way of helping to kill vermin” is exactly what this government is engaged in with their Austerity ideology and what Israel is doing to the Palestinians?” – Inferring Israel’s attitude.
        I am a strong supporter of legitimate criticism of the state of Israel but you crossed the line. There is no evidence whatever to support your claim that Israel considers itself to be doing God’s work by killing Palestinian “vermin”.
        I leave the remainder of your comment for other readers to puzzle out – if they can.

      3. samspruce

        There is no rationale in your assertion that I want to say “9/11 was a Jewish plot”. The reason for using the example it precisely because DC referred to it but it also specifically included the less reasonable reference to “the 7/7 London attacks” being staged. The point is not “9/11” or “Jews” it is simply that he determines (using those quoted remarks) there are things he wishes to stop people saying. For the record I am very clear and fairly vociferous about the difference between prejudice and valid criticism and I am a little surprised that you made the interpretation you did.
        You assert that I crossed a line, claiming there is “no evidence whatever to support your claim that Israel considers itself to be doing God’s work by killing Palestinian “vermin””. Well – first of all it was a general statement to refer to a set of dynamics that are in evidence in the public domain, but since you like detail so much I will assure you there is evidence of precisely those things; you clearly haven’t researched this subject. I am not interested in an argument at this point about other people’s assertions about God or vermin or what reasons they purport, or can be collectively considered to have. I am a little shocked at you personal prejudice toward me. I thought you were more clear thinking than that. And your last remark “I leave the remainder of your comment for other readers to puzzle out – if they can” seems quite telling.

      4. Mike Sivier Post author

        I consider myself to be fairly clear-thinking, and I don’t think I’d have the readership I enjoy if they didn’t agree with me (for the most part, at least).
        I don’t accept your claims about either the 9/11 assertion or Israel. I have done a fair amount of research with regard to the first, and a lot more with regard to the other, so I am happy to trust my judgement.
        You see, you keep trying to dismiss your transgressions – you’ll assure me there’s evidence of what you claim about Israel, but won’t provide it; you’re “not interested in an argument” that you started. My remark about leaving the remainder of your previous comment for other readers to puzzle out is indeed telling – if they read it, they would have found your argument, and the verbiage you used, very difficult to get into, and may have come to the same conclusion I did – that you were trying to confuse us into submission by presenting your argument in the most convoluted way possible, using the most complicated language possible.
        I’m not playing that game.
        Your original comment was an attempt to defend an indefensible act as free speech, let’s not forget.
        You have not justified yourself and I will not be accepting any more correspondence from you on this subject.
        Best not dig yourself even deeper into the hole, eh?

  6. buddy hall

    Not a great result for Freedom Of Speech campaigners – if Frankie Boyle had said it at one of his shows it would have been laughed off and forgotten. That said any attempt to lighten the impact of so many deaths when it is so heavy on people s minds and memories would have had a similar reaction when displayed in this way as it blatantly poring contempt on peoples feelings and was obviously done to provoke a reaction,. Well well done-think he got what he deserved.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      I think Frankie Boyle would be insulted at your claim that he might say anything of the sort.
      For clarity: This was very clearly NOT an attempt to “lighten the impact” of the deaths. It was an attempt to inflict emotional pain on people who have suffered enough already.

  7. Alan Grant

    The guy is a fascist, and proud of it. In other words, he’s a thug and a sadist and a bully-boy, and this was his way of causing amusement to any other fascist bully-boy (and girl) sadistic thugs that happen to see it. And there’s plenty of them out there.

Comments are closed.