He was simply repeating what had been told to him. He gave the interview to the SY news agency, so it will have been available to all the other papers as well. The Sun chose to run with it and print allegations as the truth. Other newspapers didn't.

Kelvin MacKenzie is trying to divert attention away from himself, and it's clearly working. But Patnick did nothing wrong over that. He was an MP passing on second hand information, and it was always obvious that's what it was. IMO there is a strong argument that The Sun shouldn't have printed what they did even if they had videotaped proof. The deaths of of 90 (or however many it was at that time) innocent people and injuries to hundreds more was so much more important. But MacKenzie chose to write that story on the back of exceptionally weak sources.

MacKenzie deserves 100% condemnation over what he did. I'm just not seeing why Patnick is being included in the vilification. I just get a feeling of Dy David Kelly over this. And I don't like the fact that the public can so quickly demonize a person over important issues when there really is no reason for it.

And this is acceptable how?

On an individual basis, repeating a libel is itself libel. I don't see why Pantick should be excused because he was repeating lies, rather than inventing them.

If he said "Some Liverpool supporters robbed from the dead and dying. Others urinated over dead bodies. Others hampered police efforts to help the dying by showering them with abuse." then he was wrong and I'd support efforts for him to be stripped of his knighthood.

If he said, "Police officers told me that they had witnessed some supporters stealing from the dead, urinating on the dying and abusing officers while they tried to help" and that is an accurate summation of what he'd be told then he was doing nothing wrong.

I read his statement to Lord Taylor. His report was clearly stating that police officers had made the comments to him.

If you have some evidence that he repeated what he'd been told as fact then please post a link to it.

Kelvin MacKenzie is guilty of the first example.

You are very insensitive. 90 (or however many is was as the time) is crass in the extreme.

Hang your head in shame.

Almost as bad as the Spectator's "50 or more".

Shameful.

You're so sensitive you should be talking to dead people on your own Living TV series.

I know that 96 people died. But there was at least one who was in a coma for an extremely long time, and from my hazy memory I'm guessing that a few days after the disaster the death toll hadn't reached the total. So rather than wasting time finding out when everyone died, I guestimated at 90. If you have a problem with that, I simply don't GAS.

IMO what is truly shameful is castigating someone over Hillsborough and apportioning blame to them without any evidence. I've asked for evidence of Patnick's supposed behaviour that is so terrible, and none has been offered. Everyone who has acted appallingly over Hillsborough deserves condemnation, but it shouldn't mean that a few scapegoats (who conveniently Mintball despises) are wheeled forward to give the masses their fix.

If Patnick deliberately colluded with police to blame innocent fans then he deserves jail and to rot. If he acted as a false witness and attributed the allegations as fact then I'd agree that his knighthood should be stripped. But if he did nothing other than report that there were police allegations of misbehavior which hampered the rescue then he did absolutely nothing wrong.

I have no axe to grind over Patnick. I never knew he existed until this week. I don't know what he actually did. But judging by Mintball's silence I think it's safe to assume that she doesn't know either.

I find his role in the affair rather strange and without any evidence I do rather suspect that his role was intentionally provocative and intended to add the final element of "weight" behind the Sth Yorks Police cover up, rather than just being repeated unsubstantiated gossip.

Its now admitted that he was the source of the unfounded allegations - now, in Sept 2012 - why did he remain anonymous for so long, why did the police or The Sun not use and name him as a credible source at the time (because he wasn't there perhaps ?), why did the police simply not approach the press themselves with these allegations ?

There was no reason at all for a local MP, who wasn't at the game and could not have witnessed anything, to get involved at all other than to mouth the usual commiserations and yet it was he who passed on those allegations to The Sun on behalf of Sth Yorks Police - why ?

Was it part of a collusion, was he wheeled in to protect the police and impress the media with his credentials, don't forget that MP's had more respect at the time than they do now and he would be a very valuable ally to have in your collusion, particularly in the context of the time and the ongoing "problem" that the government had with football hooliganism and Liverpool in general.

Indeed.

JerryChicken wrote:I find his role in the affair rather strange and without any evidence I do rather suspect that his role was intentionally provocative and intended to add the final element of "weight" behind the Sth Yorks Police cover up, rather than just being repeated unsubstantiated gossip. Its now admitted that he was the source of the unfounded allegations - now, in Sept 2012 - why did he remain anonymous for so long, why did the police or The Sun not use and name him as a credible source at the time (because he wasn't there perhaps ?), why did the police simply not approach the press themselves with these allegations ? There was no reason at all for a local MP, who wasn't at the game and could not have witnessed anything, to get involved at all other than to mouth the usual commiserations and yet it was he who passed on those allegations to The Sun on behalf of Sth Yorks Police - why ? Was it part of a collusion, was he wheeled in to protect the police and impress the media with his credentials, don't forget that MP's had more respect at the time than they do now and he would be a very valuable ally to have in your collusion, particularly in the context of the time and the ongoing "problem" that the government had with football hooliganism and Liverpool in general. http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/ ... 460001.pdf He was just doing his job as a serving MP, IMO. He was in no way a good enough source for the Sun to use in a story like that. That, IMO, is why it's only emerging now that that's all they had. For them to go with that story they should have had sworn statements from all the police officers and checked their stories. There should have been a water tight case. Kelvin MacKenzie, in his latest apology (soon to changed anyway) says that he was misled by Patnick and senior police officers. But he was writing his story based upon news agency reports. The fault lies clearly with Kelvin MacKenzie. His pathetic excuse should simply result in more condemnation for him, not a spreading of the blame to people who don't deserve it.

JerryChicken wrote:I find his role in the affair rather strange and without any evidence I do rather suspect that his role was intentionally provocative and intended to add the final element of "weight" behind the Sth Yorks Police cover up, rather than just being repeated unsubstantiated gossip. Its now admitted that he was the source of the unfounded allegations - now, in Sept 2012 - why did he remain anonymous for so long, why did the police or The Sun not use and name him as a credible source at the time (because he wasn't there perhaps ?), why did the police simply not approach the press themselves with these allegations ? There was no reason at all for a local MP, who wasn't at the game and could not have witnessed anything, to get involved at all other than to mouth the usual commiserations and yet it was he who passed on those allegations to The Sun on behalf of Sth Yorks Police - why ? Was it part of a collusion, was he wheeled in to protect the police and impress the media with his credentials, don't forget that MP's had more respect at the time than they do now and he would be a very valuable ally to have in your collusion, particularly in the context of the time and the ongoing "problem" that the government had with football hooliganism and Liverpool in general. http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/ ... 460001.pdf He was just doing his job as a serving MP, IMO. He was in no way a good enough source for the Sun to use in a story like that. That, IMO, is why it's only emerging now that that's all they had. For them to go with that story they should have had sworn statements from all the police officers and checked their stories. There should have been a water tight case. Kelvin MacKenzie, in his latest apology (soon to changed anyway) says that he was misled by Patnick and senior police officers. But he was writing his story based upon news agency reports. The fault lies clearly with Kelvin MacKenzie. His pathetic excuse should simply result in more condemnation for him, not a spreading of the blame to people who don't deserve it.

I am not convinced that the job of a serving MP is to repeat unsubstantiated rumour to the media.



Indeed. "Some big boys did it and ran away" is neither an excuse, justification nor an apology.