On the Hillsborough Independent Panel there was the Bishop of Liverpool, Peter Scruton, author of Hillsborough: The Truth and Kate Jones, a producer on McGovern's Hillsborough documentary.

Raju Bhatt had led legal action against South Yorkshire Police over the miners strike.

Peter Sissons was born and raised in Liverpool.

Perhaps you should write to the Times and the Prime Minister to complain about your perception of bias, instead of writing on a pretty insignificant internet message board?

You clearly wouldn't recognise "a working brain" if one got up and smacked across the chops, sunny Jim.

If he reported something to a news agency that he didn't believe was factually correct (ie a fact/facts), then he deserves even more anger.



Oh. So now you're switching tack to try to claim the whole thing was biased.

Presumably the retired police chief and the former Met Police information expert and the doctor were just token appointees, eh? Sat back and just let those biased Scousers run the whole show, ignoring facts and evidence?

His submission said he had no reason not to believe the officers.

Ergo he passed it on – as fact.

'Why Kelvin MacKenzie won't tell the truth.'

'Why Kelvin MacKenzie won't tell the truth.'

Why Kelvin MacKenzie won't tell the truth.

Why won’t MacKenzie tell us ‘the truth’ about Hillsborough?

Can you tell the difference between those two sentences?

You make conclusions as accurately as you quote a headline.

Saying he believed the officers version of events when they told them to him doesn't mean he reported what they said as fact. To claim otherwise is ridiculous.

Absolutely not. He also said senior officers had said he should take the comments with a pinch of salt and ended by saying the enquiry could no doubt identify the officers concerned and question them.

So, his submission was not fact it was relating what he was told. No more, no less.

Can you please clarify what you are trying to read into it and whether your interpretation is pure speculation or what?

Why bother passing on information which could not easily be verified and was already thought suspect/unreliable by senior officers? I think it's an irresponsible thing for someone in his position to do.