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.

Quote: JerryChicken "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.'" 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.

Quote: JerryChicken "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.'" 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.

rlA very good analysis in terms of context.rl

"But the 1984-85 season was marred by violence at football grounds, culminating in tragedy when 39 Juventus supporters died at the European Cup final in Brussels after they were charged by Liverpool fans. Mrs Thatcher demanded solutions to the British Disease, and nothing – ID cards, electric fences – was considered too draconian. In the event, the culture of football violence ended organically the following season when ecstasy-fuelled Acid House ushered in a new era of communality."

"It's absurd to suggest that nobody approaching the ground had had a drink, but I'd seriously doubt that anybody had time to get seriously drunk. "

Yeah, because coach drivers and car drivers insisted that because they couldn't drink that their passengers weren't allowed either.

"It's equally pat to say that everyone had tickets – but the touts soon put paid to that. They were virtually giving tickets away on the walk-up to Hillsborough."

That's touts for you.

So, back to the reasons for Patnick to be stripped of his knighthood, Mintball? Or don't you have any?

especially about an event in another MPs constituency

You are so right. Take back that knighthood straight away.

It is not a very good "analysis" it is creative fantasy from a novelist. After a few days I am already getting sick and tired of various media idiots imputing meaning into the events that weren't there. The bottom line is the police were paranoid (with good reason) of football hooliganism and disorder and they screwed up (criminally, IMO) on the day. Nothing more.

It's a good article in terms of what happened on the day. Crap in terms of political and social context

I've just read the piece, rather than just skipped through and quoted the ridiculous parts.

I think it's a good article for political and social context. Okay about what happened on the day. But the article is destroyed by glaringly stupid errors, some of which I've already quoted.

Its an opinion of someone who lived through those times as an adult and speaks about what he saw and felt during those times and on that day.

Its not a university text book on social and political history but its no less valid simply because its an eye witness account, indeed there is an argument that university texts should be all about eye witness accounts and not simply academic analysis, and the MPs who recognise that their constituents are what really matters and not what their political dogma states are usually the ones who get re-elected.