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?

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?

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

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 saidNobody 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.'"

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 [ididn't[/i 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 isSo the reason RL is or has been policed is because of hooligans, yes?'"

According to the reports last week he "reported" and "helped perpetuate" the rumours...

rlhttps://www.itv.com/news/update/2012-09-13/calls-for-sir-irvine-patnick-to-be-stripped-of-knighthood/rl

rlhttps://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/09/12/sir-irvine-patnick-should-lose-knighthood-says-mp_n_1877459.htmlrl






I don't think that anyone is suggesting otherwise.