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

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.

To claim that someone didn't report something as fact – when they have themselves have actually stated that they had no reason to disbelieve it – is ridiculous and desperate.

Together with trying to smear the panel as biased.

Patnick said, "I am not aware of names ranks or numbers of the officers but I do believe they were telling me the truth.

Saying you believe someone is not the same as saying you have no reason to disbelieve it. But you obviously have a major problem with accurately quoting anything.

But here is the White's News Agency report which MacKenzie used

So he made it clear that he was relying on information told to him by police officers.

Patnick was clearly wrong to say that the officers had no reason to lie. They could have been lying as a coping mechanism to deal with the fact that they failed in their duty to protect innocent people. They could have been suffering shock and confused events that happened an hour before the crushing as happening at the same time as people were dying. They could have suffered from the same problems as you in not being able to accurately give the correct year without making an error.



I never made any comment over whether they were biased.

Biased is too strong a word, especially as I don't know any of them. But I do think that the author of Hillsbrough: The Truth and a producer of McGovern's Hillsborough documentary have no place on an independent panel on Hillsborough.

I think that if any blame was placed on some Liverpool fans by the panel that the Bishop of Liverpool would find that his position as Bishop would be untenable.

I think that if a panel who found that there was misbehaviour by some Liverpool fans, and that panel included someone who had previously published a critical analysis of some LFC supporters, you would be screaming about bias.

Yes. He believed that was he was told was the truth. In other words, factually accurate. In other words, facts.



If you believe something to be "the truth", then you do not disbelieve it. He even said, in the quote you posted

Nobody has suggested otherwise. He was not at the match. He was told things by police officers. He believed that what they had told him was "the truth". He passed on what he had heard to the agency.



So, lots of reasons – except the -covering one.



You didn't need to. What you posted stated it for you, quite clearly.

Biased is too strong a word, especially as I don't know any of them. But I do think that the author of Hillsbrough

Strange that you don't suggest that a retired senior policeman would have no place on an independent panel, given the circumstances. Of course, if you believe the job they did was affected negatively by such things, you'll be able to provide the proof, instead of just making snide, cowardly hints.





So the results were fixed to avoid any awkwardness. Oh pur-leese.

Considering the staggering amount of information now out that both vindicates and condens various bodies and individuals on many levels is this thread really getting detailed page after page with someone trying to defence in someway one of them?

I'd also take that prick out the title as a more general discussion on Hillsborough - THE TRUTH!

Patnick said the allegations were from front line cops. Why do they need to cover their s?



Like you provided the proof of Patnick deserving to be stripped of his knighthood?

Seems to me Patnick's importance was that he was an early "witness" independent of the police. His submission reports what he did / was told and his opinion on what he was told. He is not stating what he heard was fact. Fact.

It seems to me that those wishing to strip him of titles, etc are conspiracy theorists who must therefore be of the opinion that his submission was deliberately slanted as part of some elaboraate cover up? Perhaps they feel his was leaned on / encouraged by ministers? If they do, can they please provide some evidence, say what they believe or stop sniping?

On the night of the Hillsborough disaster Irvine Patnick believed what he had been told by a few officers that they had personally been abused, witnessed abuse of dead bodies and been hampered in their efforts by violent fans.

After the Hillsborough Independent Panel Patnick seems to have accepted that those officers were lying to him.

Why does Patnick now believe that those allegations were lies?

Documentary about Hillsborough currently on Channel 5.

Did you learn anything?