I posted originally before his apology and said he should be stripped of his knighthood for doing what he has now admitted doing.

You have posted this part of the conversation since it, but pretending that the apology hasn't happened.



He has admitted to doing what I have said here he should not have done.

How old are you, BTW? And that's not a random question.

You say that Patnick approached The Sun. MacKenzie has said numerous times that he just took the South Yorkshire press agencies reports of Patnick's statements and that seems to have been his main source.

The police deserve a large proportion of the blame for the disaster, whether The Sun's "Truth" was completely true or completely false. To say they are absolved of any blame if some supporters acted badly is completely and utterly ridiculous.

I'm 38.

So basically, an MP saying "I have been told by two Police Constables that they witnessed PC's being attacked by supporters and rifling through the pockets of the dead and dying." after PC's made those comments directly to him should mean he deserves to be stripped of his knighthood?

IMO the fact that those comments were being made should have been made public record anyway. If true then it painted a picture of the job the police were facing. If false then it shows the level the police were prepared to go to lie their way out of blame.

Indeed.



There are a number of different components to the entire business. The reaction of police – and others – at the time, during the disaster itself, is one.

The cover up is another.

The role of some of the media and politicians is linked with that.



He chose to accept, without question, those comments – even though they were claims of utterly vile behaviour.

There has been no suggestion that he thought: 'Hang on – this is one massive set of accusations you're tarring all these people with: does something smell even remotely fishy?'

He appears to have taken them utterly at face value – and his own apology suggest nothing to suggest that that was not the case.

It's worth remembering that it's generally the political right that accuses the left of blaming victims for what has happened to them: this was exactly what happened here, but for a very specific reason.

The concerns and actions of Margaret Thatcher in demanding the lessening of the criticisms of the police illustrate a political nature to that cover up.

What happened was, in the first instance, a massive cock up. There are all sorts of reasons – one of which appears to be general attitudes toward football fans/the working class, which meant that the senior police officer did not allow in more than one ambulance.

It was followed by a massive cover up, which had a political aspect/context to it. And when it came to 'choosing sides', it is quite clear who the PM of the day chose to side with. It is hard to imagine that other senior politicians of the day did not maintain a similar attitude.

This is what I wrote on Saturday morning. I stand by this.

If evidence if offered that Patnick did offer evidence as fact then I will accept he deserves to be stripped of the knighthood.

But I feel that simply the fact that he was a Tory MP is enough for Mintball.

Patnick has said himself that he passed on what he been told as fact. And in the face of 23 years of slow digging to get at the truth, he has chosen to stay silent.

One wonders what it takes for you to actually comprehend this.

Just out of interest, what did Patnick actually do to deserve a knighthood and OBE in the first place?

The victims of Hillsborough were not being blamed. It is generally accepted by everyone that the victims at Hillsborough were practically totally blameless. The allegation was that while the disaster was ongoing, while people were being crushed and killed, other supporters took advantage of them and chose to steal, abuse the police and engage in further hooligan activity.

Both of those could be true. It does not reflect upon the innocent victim if some other supporters acted in a vile manner.

IMO though, treating all LFC fans as one large group means that hooligans are linked to the young kids who died. The hooligans benefit from that, and IMO it's disgusting.



I'm not even discussing Thatcher. ATM I cannot even get you to put up a decent case against Patnick, so I'm not even going to start discussing Thatcher.



The biggest mistake was not to delay the start of the game when things were clearly starting to be a problem.

The ambulance issue is a massive issue, but it does depend on whether there was an issue of hooligans gaining entry through that access.



And if that's true then it should be easy to prove Patnick's wrongdoing. But trying and convicting Patnick on that is similar to blaming Hillsborough on the hooligans.

on the basis of the limited information I'm able to find online, pick from any (or more) of the following. Being or having been:

• an MP;

• a Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury;

• deputy Chairman of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Select Committee;

• vice-president of Sheffield’s Kingfield Synagogue;

• life president of Sheffield Jewish Representative Council;

• a former national vice-chairman of the British Maccabi sports and youth organisation;

• chairman of trustees of The Trust for Research into Freemasonry,.

Thank you. You have now revealed exactly where you're coming from. You apparently desire to keep trying to sully those who were there, even after what was revealed last week.



Are you a sort of conspiracy nut in reverse – or just so full of hatred for Liverpool/Liverpool FC that you're continuing to peddle such lies because they suit your hatred?