Kelvin Mckenzie

[Herr Tubthumper]

But surely, to an extent he has a point?

I'm certainly not trying to justify running such a one sided story, but the provenance of the source was as good as you can get.

He's still a W@nker.

But the buck stopped with him. He stood or fell by his Sun judgements and that time he got it terribly wrong. He can blame his sources as much as he wants but if you are going to print such inflammatory news you had better be 100% sure your source is telling the truth.

 

[Beach Seagull]

Unlike the former Editor of The Scum, you should get your facts right before coming out with such ill-informed bollocks. The truth is out there: & it sure as Hell ain't that difficult to find.

I haven't stated any facts just opinions. For example my first paragraph says 'surely shows' rather than 'does show'....I.E opinion not fact.

Paragraph two contains an undisputable fact 'was a newspaper editor' and an opinion 'police behaviour was appalling'.

The third paragraph also contains a couple of opinions as i have stated 'I bet' rather than 'it is'.

So i would say my post was more opinion based than factual, which is what a fans forum is designed for.

 

[Beach Seagull]

What? Unaware his paper was being used as part of the cover up? The most telling fact is he ran the story with a different angle than EVERY other media outlet. If he hadn't, they wouldn't be part of the "cover up". The outcome is not anyone's fault but his.

Morgan walked - should he be demanding an apology from the photographers?[/QUOTE

Morgan was sacked.

 

[Questions]

I wish someone would sue his arse off and take him for every penny he has got and then piss on the obnoxious twat. He is an absolute toady of a man.

 

[Twinkle Toes]

I haven't stated any facts just opinions. For example my first paragraph says 'surely shows' rather than 'does show'....I.E opinion not fact.

Paragraph two contains an undisputable fact 'was a newspaper editor' and an opinion 'police behaviour was appalling'.

The third paragraph also contains a couple of opinions as i have stated 'I bet' rather than 'it is'.

So i would say my post was more opinion based than factual, which is what a fans forum is designed for.

I certainly understand your post (that I highlighted) is your current opinion. What I suggested - & am now reiterating - is that if you were to do some research into the reasons that McKenzie decided to print his pack of lies, you would hopefully have the information to formulate a different opinion.

 

[Beach Seagull]

I certainly understand your post (that I highlighted) is your current opinion. What I suggested - & am now reiterating - is that if you were to do some research into the reasons that McKenzie decided to print his pack of lies, you would hopefully have the information to formulate a different opinion.

I never claimed you didn't 'understand' my post, however you referred to my current opinion as 'ill informed bollox' rather than suggesting I try and 'formulate a different opinion.'

 

[Greg Bobkin]

What? Unaware his paper was being used as part of the cover up? The most telling fact is he ran the story with a different angle than EVERY other media outlet. If he hadn't, they wouldn't be part of the "cover up". The outcome is not anyone's fault but his.

Morgan walked - should he be demanding an apology from the photographers?[/QUOTE

Morgan was sacked.

You know what I meant. Answer the question...

 

[Greg Bobkin]

But the buck stopped with him. He stood or fell by his Sun judgements and that time he got it terribly wrong. He can blame his sources as much as he wants but if you are going to print such inflammatory news you had better be 100% sure your source is telling the truth.

Very much this. His headline, his paper, his responsibility, his fault. Too happy to take the praise when things are all rosy, but can't accept the critisism of being wrong, and a complete wrongun...

 

[Beach Seagull]

You know what I meant. Answer the question...

Why would he have felt he was part of the cover up back then? It has taken 23 years for the cover up to come to light. Given footballs hooligan problem back then I can see why he believed the lies he was fed by the police, lies which they fed to cover their failings and loss of control.

If the suspicion back in 1989 that the story was all part of a cover up the most 'telling fact' for me is there was not nationwide condemnation of the Sun or KM back then, he continued as editor for 5 years after. After that he continued to have a high profile media career.

 

[Doc Lynam]

Indeed the police are and will be villified.

What happens when police get charged over this? How legitimate were the other convictions these coppers got in the years after this event?

 

[clapham_gull]

I admit I had a bit of soft spot for Kelvin, even coming from someone whose wife's Uncle witnessed Hillsborough first hand.

Bit of a d**head who followed what he had been told re: above, but someone who has actually stuck his neck out over the years criticising the far right believe it or not.

Should have had him on THAT Question Time because he would have been a dog after a bone.

However, that's lost after reading what he's up to.

 

[Twinkle Toes]

I never claimed you didn't 'understand' my post, however you referred to my current opinion as 'ill informed bollox' rather than suggesting I try and 'formulate a different opinion.'

And there I was mistakenly beli.............oh sod it.

 

[The Large One]

What happens when police get charged over this? How legitimate were the other convictions these coppers got in the years after this event?

No police officer has ever been convicted as a result of this event.

 

[Beach Seagull]

And there I was mistakenly beli.............oh sod it.

No come on......say what you think.....

 

[Doc Lynam]

No police officer has ever been convicted as a result of this event.

The evidence has just been made public, lets wait and see!

 

[The Large One]

The evidence has just been made public, lets wait and see!

Ridiculously, the evidence was always there.

But that aside - yes, hopefully successful prosecutions are more likely.

 

[Twinkle Toes]

No come on......say what you think.....

There's no point. It's clear (via your half-arsed attempts at drawing people into a pointless 'debate' with you) that you won't be able to handle The Truth.

So for that reason, I'm out.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

But surely, to an extent he has a point?

I'm certainly not trying to justify running such a one sided story, but the provenance of the source was as good as you can get.

He's still a W@nker.

Paul Dacre of the Daily Mail once said that a good headline was one that made readers at least indignant and preferably angry. The way he and his fellow tribesmen achieve this is by knowing what subjects exercise the minds of the readers and then, by using selected sources - there are usually plenty to choose from - run stories that build on their prejudices. At the time 'football hooliganism' was a subject guaranteed to wind up middle England. They couldn't get away with that subject now but there are plenty of others to choose from. Devious Latin-Americans, welfare scroungers, liberal judges, the entire European Union... it's not obvious what they're doing but that's the whole point.

 

[Beach Seagull]

There's no point. It's clear (via your half-arsed attempts at drawing people into a pointless 'debate' with you) that you won't be able to handle The Truth.

So for that reason, I'm out.

Thought the idea of a chat forum was 'debate?' As for 'drawing people into a debate' it is their choice to join the debate. Just because my views don't chime in with your views it doesn't make them 'bollox' or 'half arsed'.

 

[The Large One]

Why would he have felt he was part of the cover up back then? It has taken 23 years for the cover up to come to light. Given footballs hooligan problem back then I can see why he believed the lies he was fed by the police, lies which they fed to cover their failings and loss of control.

If the suspicion back in 1989 that the story was all part of a cover up the most 'telling fact' for me is there was not nationwide condemnation of the Sun or KM back then, he continued as editor for 5 years after. After that he continued to have a high profile media career.

It's understood he was fed lies. It's understood he believed them, probably because it suited him to do so.

No evidence was presented to him - how many cameras were there about that day to capture this behaviour? Where were the arrests for that behaviour? Where were the police logs stating this was happening? Where was the corroborating evidence?

What was the response of the (un-named) individuals accused of this?

He took on board something he wanted to believe. It's unprofessional - no, it's appalling - that he took opinion, printed it as fact - and all without checking.