For six poignant minutes at the start of Liverpool's third-round match with Arsenal, the supporters at Anfield sang heartfelt chorus after heartfelt chorus of 'Justice for the 96'. It was a moving tribute to the memory and the innocence of the fans that died on a Hillsborough terrace in 1989. But the irony was that many of the Kop end supporters that led the singing remained standing throughout the Cup tie.
The Hillsborough Family Support Group are against the reintroduction of standing areas at major football grounds. And perhaps that should be the beginning and the end of the debate. Victims' rights canno t be ignored. Some justice for the 96 that perished at that tragic FA Cup tie was secured through the implementation of the Taylor Report. Any repeat on any scale would leave blood on the hands of any government that reversed the decision to introduce all-seat stadia.
And yet 125 MPs have now signed an Early Day Motion to "re-examine the case for limited sections of safe standing areas". That is a direct response to public pressure to reintroduce the right to choose whether to sit or stand at football matches. Thousands of supporters will exercise that right this weekend without any rights at all. The revolt against the existing regulations is growing, and so is the conflict between those that want to sit and those that want to stand in the same sections of football grounds. The argument goes that designated standing areas will make life better for those who choose to sit and cannot see at the moment. Something has got to be done.
The debate for and against standing sections is similar to that for and against speed limits on our roads. If we all sat perfectly still in our seats at Stamford Bridge and Old Trafford today, the stewards could go home. If we all drove to the matches at 10 miles per hour, the traffic cops could take the day off, too. But we won't, and they can't. And that despite the fact that history tells us the consequences of ignoring the laws could be equally serious. We think we know best.
Standing to watch football is not inherently dangerous. Even Lord Taylor conceded that much. Entering and leaving a stadium are far more hazardous activities. Customers will stand without fear of redress at games in Leagues One and Two today, and at rugby fixtures and rock concerts all over the country. In Germany, most Bundesliga venues have reinstated standing areas. Many of them can be adapted to 'all-seat' European fixtures. The safety standards and considerations bear no comparison to those that led to the disaster that was waiting to happen in the Eighties. Lessons have been learnt, progress has been made.
The very concept of 'safe' standing areas contradicts the overriding view of the Football Licensing Authority, though. Their evidence suggests seating is safer than standing. Period. Others can campaign and complain, but the buck stops with the FLA and with it a heavy responsibility. But they now have a new responsibility to address: the safety of standing in seated areas. Strenuous efforts have been made to encourage and enforce the 'no standing' regulations. Offenders have been ejected, ticket allocations have been reduced in some cases. But the resistance movement gets bigger, and the inconvenience to those sitting behind and among them gets bigger, too. It's a particular problem when children and Shaun Wright-Phillips' sized spectators cannot get value for the £30 or so they have paid to sit in comfort.
The case for 'safe standing' is a good one. It is more dangerous to stand in a designated sitting area than one that has been given over to an old style terrace. There is also hard evidence to suggest that it would not automatically open the turnstiles to the hooligan culture that still infects Italy and other parts of the football world. But underlying the argument is the personal right of a fan to support his team in the position and at the volume that he or she wants to. It is the notion that communal standing and swaying and chanting and barracking are all part of the heritage and the atmosphere of the British game. But that's not a good enough reason.
It is a stance that is embellished by emotive talk of football fans being unfairly pre-judged by the rest of society, of working-class supporters being priced out of football in favour of corporate customers, of clubs resisting the additional costs of converting parts of their stadia back to standing terraces. Conspiracy theories abound, but they cloud the picture.
It is a delicate issue. Hillsborough made sure of that. But it has now become more of a practical issue. The tension between the sitters and the standers and the stewards caught in the crossfire is not healthy. No wonder a website dedicated to the campaign is called 'standupsitdown.co.uk' because half the people in these sections want to do one thing and the other half want the opposite. And the poor club security officials are the ones who have got to adjudicate. A new threat to safety is emerging and it has got to be addressed. If rules are rules, the revolt must be put down. If rules are mere guidelines, a compromise needs to be reached. We have to be realistic. It may be time for some carefully-monitored trials.
I lived on Merseyside in 1989 and was involved as a radio journalist in the aftermath of the Hillsborough tragedy. Two people that were known to me were among the victims. I have always been of the view that nothing - no loss of atmosphere or heritage - could possibly justify a return to terracing and the inherent risks implied. There will never be 'justice for the 96' because they died needlessly. But the seating on the Kop and elsewhere was, at least, a legacy for them. But maybe if there really is such a thing as 'safe standing', it would be an even better legacy.
Watching Liverpool people standing throughout their compassionate tribute to those that never returned from Sheffield has made me think again.