Should the Norman Bettison book be banned?

[Tooting Gull]

Personally I can't stand the bloke. I have no doubt he lied through his teeth about the fans at Hillsborough, participated in or even led the cover-up from the police, took no responsibility for the victims, failed to take on board the horrific effect on the lives of the families, showed no remorse from the police point of view as to what happened, and was imbued with a culture that prevailed among police at the time, that if they stuck together and lied they could get away with anything.

The fact he is publishing his own account of Hillsborough from the police perspective has understandably provoked fury on Merseyside especially, and it can reasonably be expected to contain spin, excuses and justifications that don't hold any water.

But should the book actually be banned, as Waterstone's in Liverpool have done? Offensive as it certainly will be, is there a free speech consideration in there somewhere?

 

[BBassic]

Personally I'll never condone the banning of books. Protest furiously at their publication and urge people not to buy them, but banning is a step too far.

 

[ROSM]

I don't condone the banning of books. However


Given the legals aren't over on this by some mark, is this likely to be likely to.prejudice that process?

I'm sure Mr Bettison is fully aware of the legal position here. It's just a pity that he's a less than totally honest scrote who will compound the pain his actions have caused to the families of the 96 by this action

 

[Frutos]

Personally I'll never condone the banning of books. Protest furiously at their publication and urge people not to buy them, but banning is a step too far.

Absolutely this.

It comes back to the quote that says "I may hate what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

 

[Tooting Gull]

I don't condone the banning of books. However


Given the legals aren't over on this by some mark, is this likely to be likely to.prejudice that process?

I'm sure Mr Bettison is fully aware of the legal position here. It's just a pity that he's a less than totally honest scrote who will compound the pain his actions have caused to the families of the 96 by this action

Good point. It's amazing how his memory, so shaky in the various public inquiries etc, has suddenly come back with such clarity he can write a book...but then I haven't read it what's in it.

 

[Seasidesage]

Ban books never. Orchestrate a campaign to persuade people not to buy it on the other hand, why not? Hopefully, by the time this ******* gets any royalties from this book he'll be in prison. Like that is ever gonna happen....

Hillsborough shows oh so clearly how corrupt the justice system of this country really is and the successive governments which have colluded in the cover up too.

 

[Billy the Fish]

There's a big difference between banning something and shops refusing to sell it.

 

[studio150]

People have the choice to read it or not, or disagree or support the content, but banning it should not be an option in a free society.

Indeed any outcry over the publication of the book could be counter productive as it obtains a notoriety which encourages people to read, whereas just accepting the publication without a campaign would see the book in the bargain buckets within weeks.

 

[Tooting Gull]

There's a big difference between banning something and shops refusing to sell it.

If there is a difference between a shop banning a book and refusing to stock it, that difference is either non existent or negligible.

 

[Triggaaar]

If there is a difference between a shop banning a book and refusing to stock it, that difference is either non existent or negligible.

No, because you can buy the book elsewhere. It's nothing like the same as the book being banned everywhere, preventing people from reading certain opinions, history etc.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

It shouldn't be banned and bookshops should stock it.
The logic is pretty clear in my opinion. Previous legal proceedings found in favour
of the police. If bookshops had applied a ban on anything that contravened these findings then nothing could have been stocked that supported the Hillsborough families. People should be capable of looking
around a bookshop and coming across books with content that they disagree with. If you don't like it don't buy it and that goes for the Sun newspaper as well.
The surprising aspect to this is that the banners tend to be the same people who in other respects wouldn't doff their hats to the authorities (in this case the courts) and yet given the chance seek to impose their own authoritarianism.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

If there is a difference between a shop banning a book and refusing to stock it, that difference is either non existent or negligible.

Agreed - it would be semantics.

But is not banning what it would be called if it was a government action - i.e. the home Office or similar forbidding the book to be sold. And like others on here I would certainly not support that unless there was very good reason to do it - such as the "case" still being sub judice.

 

[Tooting Gull]

No, because you can buy the book elsewhere. It's nothing like the same as the book being banned everywhere, preventing people from reading certain opinions, history etc.

But we are talking about the shop, and what they have done. And they have effectively banned it unilaterally from their stores in a particular location, there is no way around that however you dress it up. Whether you can get it elsewhere is irrelevant to these specific actions.

Now I can completely understand why they have done it. There is real anger on Merseyside about this, and Waterstone's don't want the possible protests/aggravation. But I was interested hearing others' views on where they do/don't think the free speech line lies in this case.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

But we are talking about the shop, and what they have done. And they have effectively banned it unilaterally from their stores in a particular location, there is no way around that however you dress it up. Whether you can get it elsewhere is irrelevant to these specific actions.

Now I can completely understand why they have done it. There is real anger on Merseyside about this, and Waterstone's don't want the possible protests/aggravation. But I was interested hearing others' views on where they do/don't think the free speech line lies in this case.

To be frank, had they stocked it, in their Liverpool branch, they would have sold zero copies. Why should they pay for stock that they know is never going to sell (and would probably get defaced / damaged?

 

[Tooting Gull]

To be frank, had they stocked it, in their Liverpool branch, they would have sold zero copies. Why should they pay for stock that they know is never going to sell (and would probably get defaced / damaged?

I suspect you're right - but you don't know they would have sold zero copies. I tend to agree with those who think they should just let the bloke hang himself and stock it. I have no doubt that campaigners and journalists will drive a bus through many of his self-serving arguments.

 

[Notters]

Is anyone going to buy it anyway?!

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

To be frank, had they stocked it, in their Liverpool branch, they would have sold zero copies. Why should they pay for stock that they know is never going to sell (and would probably get defaced / damaged?

The same logic could be applied to religious books produced by the main religions. At times of religious tension there could equally be protest at the distasteful and unsavory content (the advent of the internet has given every sad case campaigner a wonderful platform with which to get organized). The answer wouldn't be a ban.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

If there is a difference between a shop banning a book and refusing to stock it, that difference is either non existent or negligible.

Like the club with Dick Knight's book.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Total agreement with most posters here. Let him publish it if he wants (I'm quite surprised he found a publisher, but presumably they felt there was some sort of market for it). The biggest indictment of people's feelings towards him would be not to ban it, but to let the sales speak for themselves. Understandable that a Merseyside bookshop won't stock it, for the same reasons that plenty of shops up there won't sell the Sun.

There's plenty of books that I find distasteful. My response to that is simply not to buy them. I wouldn't demand their prohibition.

 

[Triggaaar]

But we are talking about the shop, and what they have done.

I understand that's what you wanted to discuss, but others are discussing the banning of books in general, and the thing most of us have against that is that what don't want to end free speech.

And they have effectively banned it unilaterally from their stores in a particular location, there is no way around that however you dress it up. Whether you can get it elsewhere is irrelevant to these specific actions.

They haven't banned it, they've chosen not to sell it. Do all bookstores sell all books? No, of course not, so what difference does in make if this one store doesn't sell this one book?

I was interested hearing others' views on where they do/don't think the free speech line lies in this case.

Well here's my view: free speech means that the book should be available somewhere, that's all. Just like when our club weren't stocking Dick's book, that wasn't a great infringement on civil liberties.