Link to the quote then.

Patnick should not have been the main source to that story, and it's inconceivable that he was.

Would you think that Patnick's comments were ever worthy of going straight to the front page of the biggest newspaper in the country, without verification? No? Well why should he?

His submission to Justice Taylor pointed out that he called out a journalist for attributing comments to him that he'd never made. It has only been revealed now that MacKenzie was relying on him as his source. Why should Patnick have thought that MacKenzie's sole source was him?

I did. A few posts ago.



Nobody is claiming that he was the sole source. It changes nothing. He happens, though, to have been the local MP and a senior politician in the government of the day. In other words, he would be seen as believable.

Christ: this was in the era of a judge believe a liar like Archer because his wife was "fragrant".



Now what newspaper would that be, owned by whom and with what links to the Establishment?



It doesn't make an iota of difference. He has admitted he made some damaging comments – and apologised for them. He's admitted his own culpability – even saying he should not have taken them at face value without investigating further, and that was his responsibility.

And it is utterly irrelevant whether he thought he was the sole source or not. If you go around telling porkies/repeating gossip just because you think you're not the only one doing so, it does not deflect from your own responsibility. In fact, it's actually funny that you seem to imagine that this is the case.

And he was an MP, and a senior member of the government of the day.

WTFever.

The hooligan element in football played a mammoth part in the Hillsborough disaster. A significant part of of the hooligan element resided at my club. Indeed, on the day of Hillsborough Chelsea fans caused trouble at Leicester, many gained entry without tickets or payment and deaths and injuries could have occurred because of our fans behaviour.

The notion that misbehaviour of football fans wasn't in any way to blame for Hillsborough, which seems to be the conclusion of last weeks report, is completely and utterly bogus IMO. The reason that football was policed as it was was because of hooligans, not Margaret Thatcher as you wish to claim. The article that you linked to, that "hooliganism had organically ended" because of acid house and E is so ludicrous that you've got to be questioned as to how you could link to it.

You asked a question of would the deaths of 96 people have been covered up if it happened at Lords. But the fact is that 96 deaths wouldn't have happened at a cricket match. The only circumstances where those deaths could have happened were at a football match. Not cricket, not RL, not RU.

My main reason for even being on this thread is because I want "The Truth" to actually be THE TRUTH. From everything I've seen until now the vilification of Patnick is nothing more than a search for scapegoats, and in your case a search for a scapegoat who is your political enemy. If Patnick f'd up, then I couldn't care less about him and he's getting what he deserves. But that doesn't alter the fact that you don't need or want evidence to throw him to the lions. Being a Tory MP is enough for you.

For the benefit of Mintball, football 'hooliganism' pre-dated Mrs Thatcher's time in power.

Yes dear. I think you'll find I mentioned something of the history of football-related hooliganism.

Probably about the time I was handing you your backside on a plate when you tried to claim that hooliganism was a product of the "liberal" 1960s.

You said: Patnick has said himself that he passed on what he been told as fact.

This is what Patnick said: It is now clear that the information I received from some police officers at the time was wholly inaccurate, misleading and plain wrong. However, I totally accept responsibility for passing such information on without asking further questions.

He doesn't say whether he passed on the allegation as fact, or whether he merely reported what the police officers had told him.

So you are completely and utterly wrong to claim that he said himself that he passed it in as fact. Like I said, the fact that you're a journalist shows up what a sorry state journalism is in in the UK.



Kelvin MacKenzie is saying he was the main source, along with a senior police officer.



It wasn't Patnick's responsibility to find out the truth of the allegations. He didn't have the power or the remit to do so. In fact the truth of the allegations are practically impossible to prove or disprove. If a cop comes forward and says he witnessed a thief stealing from a dead body, you won't believe him anyway. Given the fact that 96 people died and hundreds more were injured, petty theft, however disgusting, is pretty much irrelevant anyway.

In terms of informing the attitudes of the police toward football fans in general, and via that, informing their actions on the day – quite probably.

That does not mean that there was some mass hooligan presence on the day – and that they were, as you are trying to suggest, blocking the way that ambulances might have been able to get through.



Well indeed. Kindly point out anyone who has suggested as much.



So the reason RL is or has been policed is because of hooligans, yes?



I have claimed no such thing.



I linked to it for the reasons that have been explored here. If you're either too busy to read those posts, or couldn't understand them or have simply chosen to ignore them, that's up to you.



Or at rock concerts. Must be footy hooligans to blame ...



Oh for goodness sake, stop trying to pretend that Patnick didn't 'f up'. He did – he himself has admitted as much with his apology. He doesn't need you trying to pretend he didn't. And your efforts to pretend that the only context to Hillsborough that matters is football-related hooliganism (but absolutely not anything whatsoever to do with politics) is simply risable and as selective as much of what else you've chosen to 'understand' or not here.

Ah. So he didn't think it was a fact, then? And he chose to pass on something he didn't believe was a fact?

Stop it. You're just being silly now.



I'm not here in a professional capacity, any more than anyone else is. Including you. Whatever it is that you do. Or don't.

I'm not trying to say that there was a mass hooligan presence that day. I was trying to think of a reason why the police didn't allow more ambulances onto the pitch.

The fact that there was a significant worry of hooliganism for the police to have to form a line on the field to stop violence, an action that Justice Taylor said was correct, suggests though that the threat of hooliganism still was present. Forest fans did boo at the game being abandoned, they obviously thought the game had been stopped because of violence, rather than the true reason.



The general response to last weeks report is: Football fans, completely and totally innocent at Hillsborough.



No. It's policed because it's a large scale public event and the lack of policing would create problems for both the participants and the community.

But RL games aren't policed like football games were.



And I posted about my reasons for thinking that article was ridiculous BS.

[/quote]Or at rock concerts. Must be footy hooligans to blame ...[/quote]

Which rock concerts have ever had a similar disaster to Hillsborough?



Stop pretending that you care whether Patnick was guilty or screwing up or not. He's a Tory, that's enough for you.

I've said many times that if he passed off an allegation as fact then I support him being stripped of his knighthood. That has never been proved, even though you lie and try and claim it has.



It's BS to say that I've ever claimed that the only context that matters to Hillsborough is football related violence. The biggest context to Hillsborough is public safety. On that the police failed big time, and that was completely irrelevant to hooliganism.

I think that your attack on Patnick is totally to do with politics. And as I've said, nothing more than a search for a scapegoat, one who happens to be your political enemy. I've placed the blame 100% on Kelvin MacKenzie, because what he did is disgusting. But I haven't seen anything yet to castigate Patnick for. Sure, he regrets having any involvement and he has apologised. But as long as he was accurately reporting and attributing comments made to him, he was doing no wrong.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote: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. According to the reports last week he "reported" and "helped perpetuate" the rumours... http://www.itv.com/news/update/2012-09-13/calls-for-sir-irvine-patnick-to-be-stripped-of-knighthood/ http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/09/12/sir-irvine-patnick-should-lose-knighthood-says-mp_n_1877459.html Quote: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 don't think that anyone is suggesting otherwise.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote: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. According to the reports last week he "reported" and "helped perpetuate" the rumours... http://www.itv.com/news/update/2012-09-13/calls-for-sir-irvine-patnick-to-be-stripped-of-knighthood/ http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/09/12/sir-irvine-patnick-should-lose-knighthood-says-mp_n_1877459.html Quote: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 don't think that anyone is suggesting otherwise.