I did not offer that link as reasons to strip Patnick of his knighthood.

Do try harder next time to follow a discussion.

The 'reason' would be because someone in a position of authority should not simply go around passing on highly damaging hearsay as 'the truth'.

At best, he was/is a gullible imbecile.

At worst, I suspect his worldview coloured his happiness at being told such things and he determined to make as much use of them as possible.

Precisely.

It's one mans take on events as he remembers them.
I wouldn't agree verbatim with the piece but he's certainly not far off the mark in the general crux.

He said two hours wasn't enough time to get too drunk. BS. (Ignoring the fact that car and coach passengers could have been tanked up during the journey as well, and the fact that many of the supporters would have been using the motorways, not Snake Pass, and Liverpool have supporters all the country.)

He said that touts were virtually giving away tickets. WTFever.

He said that hooliganism had been "organically ended" because all the hooligans had moved on to acid house and E. What a total load of b*****s.

I never said you did. I was following the discussion fine, and simply asking for evidence and/or reasoning, seeing as you weren't offering any.



You have no evidence that he did pass on hearsay as the truth. All you have is MacKenzie fingering him as his source.

Even if Patnick did offer rumours as fact, any decent journalist would have asked follow up questions to find out how deep his knowledge was. They'd have tried to find the police officers who made the initial allegations to determine when and where the incidents happened. They'd have been asking to see footage of the areas to determine that the accounts were accurate. An MP, who clearly wasn't at the event, is obviously not a reliable source to print the story. He should have simply been a starting point of an investigation, not the main source to a front page story.



I suspect that your worldview colours your happiness so much that you are doing exactly what you accuse Patnick of doing.

The jury is out on Patnick until further evidence is offered. There's no proof he's done anything wrong.

But you and MacKenzie are pathetic examples of the journalistic profession.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:... You have no evidence that he did pass on hearsay as the truth. All you have is MacKenzie fingering him as his source... So Patnick's own grovelling apology is not "evidence", then? Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:.... An MP, who clearly wasn't at the event ... Should have STFU – unless or until he had evidence. Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:The jury is out on Patnick until further evidence is offered. There's no proof he's done anything wrong... Well indeed. He hasn't even admitted he did so. Shall we have a little look at what he has said (through the Conservative Party)? Because you seem to have missed it. Irvine Patnick in Metro wrote:"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." Full story here. You better have a word with him, if he's accepting full responsibility for something which we only have Kelvin's word for.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:... You have no evidence that he did pass on hearsay as the truth. All you have is MacKenzie fingering him as his source... So Patnick's own grovelling apology is not "evidence", then? Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:.... An MP, who clearly wasn't at the event ... Should have STFU – unless or until he had evidence. Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:The jury is out on Patnick until further evidence is offered. There's no proof he's done anything wrong... Well indeed. He hasn't even admitted he did so. Shall we have a little look at what he has said (through the Conservative Party)? Because you seem to have missed it. Irvine Patnick in Metro wrote:"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." Full story here. You better have a word with him, if he's accepting full responsibility for something which we only have Kelvin's word for.

Did you read my post? Thought not.

I can relate to a lot of what he writes because I was a young man, very aware and interested in the political climate of the time.

Were you?

I also let you know that I wasn't in total agreement of his piece.

You're applying the logic of "What should have happened" and probably also factoring in a little bit of "What might happen now".

You aren't throwing into the pot any of the elements that existed at that time, which is precisely what academic analysis of events long after the events ultimately fails to take account of, to add two elements into the mix - The Sun was an ardent supporter of Margaret Thatcher, they even claimed to have won elections for her, she supported the police to the hilt on every occasion as she relied on them to support her - take those two facts and then think about one of her most respected MP's approaching The Sun with a story that would completely absolve the police of any blame and instead pin that blame firmly on football hooligans and Liverpool in general, two of the biggest pains in her side.

Now what do you come up with ?

A cover-up ?

Or just some doddery old bloke who should have been dismissed as a trouble causer ?

And also being on the periphery of my home towns own football firm I'm probably in a better position than you, or him, to understand what went on in, and around football grounds at the time.

Mintball wrote:So Patnick's own grovelling apology is not "evidence", then? You never offered that as evidence. I have seen reports of his apology. There is not enough detail in that to suggest whether he was as guilty as you want him to be. But as his apology is accepted as proof of guilt, you can understand why people are loath to offer any apology even if they have done wrong. Quote:Should have STFU – unless or until he had evidence. So if he was told by another officer that senior police were trying to cover things up, should he have STFU about that as well because he couldn't get evidence? Quote:Well indeed. He hasn't even admitted he did so. Shall we have a little look at what he has said (through the Conservative Party)? Because you seem to have missed it. Full story here. You better have a word with him, if he's accepting full responsibility for something which we only have Kelvin's word for. I've posted in detail about what how guilty he was, depending on what happened. There has been no evidence what Patnick said to the news agency, or how that was filed. I don't feel that what is in the public domain right now is enough for him to deserve the condemnation he's getting. But I do feel from everything I've read from you that the only thing that matters to you is that he was a Tory MP. You accuse them of being involved in a class war, but the accusation fits you far more.

Mintball wrote:So Patnick's own grovelling apology is not "evidence", then? You never offered that as evidence. I have seen reports of his apology. There is not enough detail in that to suggest whether he was as guilty as you want him to be. But as his apology is accepted as proof of guilt, you can understand why people are loath to offer any apology even if they have done wrong. Quote:Should have STFU – unless or until he had evidence. So if he was told by another officer that senior police were trying to cover things up, should he have STFU about that as well because he couldn't get evidence? Quote:Well indeed. He hasn't even admitted he did so. Shall we have a little look at what he has said (through the Conservative Party)? Because you seem to have missed it. Full story here. You better have a word with him, if he's accepting full responsibility for something which we only have Kelvin's word for. I've posted in detail about what how guilty he was, depending on what happened. There has been no evidence what Patnick said to the news agency, or how that was filed. I don't feel that what is in the public domain right now is enough for him to deserve the condemnation he's getting. But I do feel from everything I've read from you that the only thing that matters to you is that he was a Tory MP. You accuse them of being involved in a class war, but the accusation fits you far more.