Liverpool FC Forum

[we all dream...]

[saint Helens red]

I had to come on here to let you know what is being said by some people on another forum that I am a member off, it made my blood boil, the site is political-debate.co.uk the forum is worldwide political debate, and the name of the thread is remembering Hillsborough twenty years on, read what war pig has to say, it didnt amuse me.

[BobbyJ]

Hi folks, I just thought I'd make you aware of a forum that has a posting regarding Hillsborough. It was started in good faith by someone from Sheffield showing their respect for the anniversary. Unfortunately, a bloke called SimonW cut in, and made terrible remarks, including,
"Lets be totally truthful here. I bet the Merseyside Police were able to close out a few crimes after they cross-checked the names." I wanted to make you all aware and would encourage you to register and make you opinion known! I think it's disgusting.

Here's the website:
www.dunbar.org.uk

and the thread:
http://www.dunbar.org.uk/index.p....1#p1620

Cheers.

[hatter]

I agree with you . Slanderous things are said , in the papers, and on forums . I posted on the Hillsborough thread , support from Luton Town , I also pointed out the crass articale in the Mirror , by a Liverpool supporter , but have recieved little support other than from some normal thinking Liverpool , and Luton fans . People get away with things , and when I phoned the Mirror , I was told that my call was " noted " . Keep up the pressure , because the mirror are just ignoreing us !!

[Dissident]

Nice one Leon. I had only ever read The Scum a couple of times before their work of fiction on Hillsboro' occured. The first time was out of curiosity. I found it to be full of racism and other right wing . The second time was to see if the first time was just a one off edition....I was disappointed.

I did some research for a paper I wrote some years ago  the trashloid media. One of the things I learned was that the media thrive on printing stories about conflict. It's a journalistic tool that tablioids use because people love reading about conflict.

What the Scum did that day though seriously over stepped the mark. It seems to me that, without exception tabloids newspapers will  stop at nothing to profiteer from personal and communal tragedy.

I hate the Scum, I hate trashloid newspapers, all of them. They're full of inane celebrity and biased propaganda and The Scum is amongst the worst offenders. The people who write in them aren't fit to be called journalists.

[dawson99]

You know that rag printed that Boogers (then playing for west ham) was living ni a caravan. urban myth, he had a nervous breakdown, but the rag didnt care what lives they ruined

its a disgrace. Funny to hear what Charlie Brooker thinks of therag and Mackenzie, he teslls it how we all wish we could on tv

[sajven]

That rag is a horrible little paper, written by horrible folk. Why do clubs not sue that filth, i ask myself.

[Igor Zidane]

Top artical from John Pilger.


http://www.newstatesman.com/interna....ckenzie




Lies, damn lies

John Pilger

Published 23 July 2009

   

Murdoch’s papers have relentlessly assaulted common truth and decency, but their most successful war has been on journalism itself

I met Eddie Spearritt in the Philharmonic pub, overlooking Liverpool. It was a few years after 96 Liverpool football fans had been crushed to death at Hillsborough Stadium, Sheffield, on 15 April 1989. Eddie's son, Adam, aged 14, died in his arms. The "main reason for the disaster", Lord Justice Taylor subsequently reported, was the "failure" of the police, who had herded fans into a lethal pen.

“As I lay in my hospital bed," Eddie said, “the hospital staff kept the Sun away from me. It's bad enough when you lose your 14-year-old son because you're treating him to a football match. Nothing can be worse than that. But since then I've had to defend him against all the rubbish printed by the Sun about everyone there being a hooligan and drinking. There was no hooliganism. During 31 days of Lord Justice Taylor's inquiry, no blame was attributed because of alcohol. Adam never touched it in his life."

Three days after the disaster, Kelvin MacKenzie, Rupert Murdoch's "favourite editor", sat down and designed the Sun front page, scribbling "THE TRUTH" in huge letters. Beneath it, he wrote three subsidiary headlines: "Some fans picked pockets of victims" . . . "Some fans urinated on the brave cops" . . . "Some fans beat up PC giving kiss of life". All of it was false; MacKenzie was banking on anti-Liverpool prejudice.

When sales of the Sun fell by almost 40 per cent on Merseyside, Murdoch ordered his favourite editor to feign penitence. BBC Radio 4 was chosen as his platform. The "sarf London" accent that was integral to MacKenzie's fake persona as an "ordinary punter" was now a contrite, middle-class voice that fitted Radio 4. "I made a rather serious error," said MacKenzie, who has since been back on Radio 4 in a very different mood,aggressively claiming that the Sun's treatment of Hillsborough was merely a "vehicle for others".

When we met, Eddie Spearritt mentioned MacKenzie and Murdoch with a dignified anger. So did Joan Traynor, who lost two sons, Christopher and Kevin, whose funeral was invaded by MacKenzie's photographers even though Joan had asked for her family's privacy to be respected. The picture of her sons' coffins on the front page of a paper that had lied about the circumstances of their death so deeply upset her that for years she could barely speak about it.

Such relentless inhumanity forms the iceberg beneath the Guardian's current exposé of Murdoch's alleged payment of £1m hush money to those whose phones his News of the World reporters have criminally invaded. "A cultural Chernobyl," is how the German investigative journalist Reiner Luyken, based in London, described Murdoch's effect on British life. Of course, there is a colourful Fleet Street history of lies, damn lies, but no proprietor ever attained the infectious power of Murdoch's putrescence. To public truth and decency and freedom, he is as the dunghill
is to the blowfly. The rich and famous can usually defend themselves with expensive libel actions; but most of Murdoch's victims are people like the Hillsborough parents, who suffer without recourse.

The Murdoch "ethos" was demonstrated right from the beginning of his career, as Richard Neville has documented. In 1964, his Sydney tabloid, the Daily Mirror, published the diary of a 14-year-old schoolgirl under the headline, "WE HAVE SCHOOLGIRL'S ORGY DIARY". A 13-year-old boy, who was identified, was expelled from the same school. Soon afterwards, he hanged himself from his mother's clothesline. The "sex diary" was subsequently found to be fake. Soon after Murdoch bought the News of the World in 1971, a strikingly similar episode involving an adolescent diary led to the suicide of a 15-year-old girl. And Murdoch himself said, of the industrial killing of innocent men, women and children in Iraq: "There is going to be collateral damage. And if you really want to be brutal about it, better we get it done now . . ."

His most successful war has been on journalism itself. A leading Murdoch retainer, Andrew Neil, the Kelvin MacKenzie of the Sunday Times, conducted one of his master's most notorious smear campaigns against ITV (like the BBC, a "monopoly" standing in Murdoch's way). In 1988, the ITV company Thames Television made Death on the Rock, an investigative documentary that lifted a veil on the British secret state under Margaret Thatcher, describing how an SAS team had murdered four unarmed IRA members in Gibraltar with their hands in the air.

The message was clear: Thatcher was willing to use death squads. The Sunday Times and the Sun, side by side in Murdoch's razor-wired Wapping fortress, echoed Thatcher's scurrilous attacks on Thames Television and subjected the principal witness to the murders, Carmen Proetta, to a torrent of lies and personal abuse. She later won £300,000 in libel damages, and a public inquiry vindicated the programme's accuracy and integrity. This did not prevent Thames, an innovative broadcaster, from losing its licence.

Murdoch's most obsequious supplicants are politicians, especially New Labour. Having ensured that Murdoch pays minimal tax, and having attended the farewell party of one editor of the Sun, Gordon Brown was recently in full fawn at the wedding of another editor of the same paper. Don Corleone expects nothing less.

The hypocrisy, however, is almost magical. In 1995, Murdoch flew Tony and Cherie Blair first-class to Hayman Island, Australia, where the aspiring war criminal spoke about "the need for a new moral purpose in politics", which included the lifting of government regulations on the media. Murdoch shook his hand warmly. The next day the Sun commented: "Mr Blair has vision, he has purpose and he speaks our language on morality and family life."

The two are devout Christians, after all.

www.johnpilger.com

[account deleted by request]

I hope someone was disciplined for this mistake.

[redbeergoggles]

I hope someone was disciplined for this mistake.

I simply cant believe an oversight of that magnitude could reveal itself on LFC TV of all sites ,well spotted Saint .
LFC TV should be the bastion of all we hold true  ,this type of lethargic work needs to be eradicated its slovenly and lazy   

[Igor Zidane]

It's been sorted apperntly , someone who works for the offal posted on the rattle that a full investigation is underway . Something to do with the company who sell the advertising space on the offal for LFC know that there's a banned list and this slipped through somehow . It's getting sorted anyhow.

[GYBS]

Quote
Friday, 18 September 2009
"BRING BACK KELVIN MACKENZIE" FLIPPANT REMARK OR UNBELIEVABLE IGNORANCE?
I HATE Kelvin MacKenzie - a controversy courting, self-obsessed, horrible rat of a man responsible for one the worst examples of supposed journalism ever seen in the UK.

I speak of course of the S*n's 'Truth' article following the Hillsborough disaster, a disgraceful, unsubstantiated, hate-filled piece of drivel that piled on the hurt to families still feeling the raw pain of losing their loved ones in a disaster just days before.

The article rightly led to a boycott of the newspaper, which is still observed by thousands on Merseyside.

In 2004 the newspaper apologised for "the most terrible mistake" in its history.

MacKenzie, however, stands by his bile, stating at a business lunch in 2006: "I wasn't sorry then and I'm not sorry now because we told the truth."

Note the use of "we". And yet the story from The History of the S*n (Peter Chippendale and Chris Horrie) paints a very different picture:


As MacKenzie's layout was seen by more and more people, a collective shudder ran through the office [but] MacKenzie's dominance was so total there was nobody left in the organisation who could rein him in except Murdoch. [Everyone] seemed paralysed, "looking like rabbits in the headlights", as one hack described them. The error staring them in the face was too glaring. It obviously wasn't a silly mistake; nor was it a simple oversight. Nobody really had any comment on it, they just took one look and went away shaking their heads in wonder at the enormity of it. It was a "classic smear".

Amazingly this scummy man's career continues, as does his obvious hatred for Liverpool, Merseyside and Scousers.

Not only does the twisted oaf continue to write for the S*n, he is somehow regularly given air time on TV and radio.

A simple google search reveals his bent views are continuing to offend so I wouldn't expect anyone, in jest or otherwise, to suggest he is worthy of again holding the title of editor of a national newspaper again.

So imagine my surprise when this disgrace to the profession of journalism is mentioned in an article about the current editor of the S*n, an article which has the penultimate sentence: "Bring back Kelvin MacKenzie".

What publication would publish such a notion? The Journalist - The National Union of Journalists magazine which goes out to all members.

You couldn't make it up.

This is the man who once said: “When I published those stories, they were not lies. They were great stories that later turned out to be untrue - and that is different. What am I supposed to feel ashamed about?”


Livid, I wrote to the editor of The Journalist. The reply? Well you couldn't make that up either...

--------------------------------------------------
The article in full from The Journalist, September/October 2009:


WHAT'S WRONG with showbiz writers like the S*n's Dominic Mohan becoming editors of national newspapers? He follows people like John Blake, Piers Morgan and Andy Coulson in the move from editing the Bizarre column to the paper itself.

Aside from the hardly needed confirmation of the S*n's devotion to mindless celebrity, there are three things wrong:

First is the way their journalism is produced: the celebrity industry is happily dependent on the whims of the stars and chicanery of their agents. Not a good model for news journalism.

Second is the fact that it makes the editor a celebrity. Showbiz columnists love to write about their own obsessively partying lives and to get themselves photographed looking all matey with the stars.

And third is the authority they wield with our rulers. Piers Morgan is constantly bragging about the access he enjoyed to Downing Street when Tony Blair would apparently drop whatever inconsequential matters he was engaged with to take his counsel.

I do not hold Prime Ministers in high regard but I do recognise they are busy people and I find the notion that they should have to give their coveted attention to these vain and prattling groupies rather unsettling, don't you?

Bring back Kelvin MacKenzie. He may be a boorish reactionary but his news values do at least relate to the real political world.

My email to The Journalist:

Dear Editor,

I refer to the article in 'Gripe' on page 31 of your current issue with the headline 'Hey Prime Minister'.

While I take the point about showbiz reporters becoming editors of national newspapers signalling a sign of a slip in standards of journalism, I am gobsmacked by the last paragraph advocating the return of Kelvin MacKenzie to the role of editor at The S*n.

The article describes showbiz reporters' methods as "not a good model of news journalism".

And Mackenzie's is? Should you need reminding he is the man responsible for The S*n's "The Truth" headline which accused Liverpool fans at the Hillsborough disaster in 1989 of urinating on police and robbing victims.

It lost 200,000 sales in a week, its reputation on Merseyside and was condemned by the Press Complaints Commission.

In July 2004, it tried to make amends by printing a full-page apology, describing its coverage of the disaster as "the most terrible mistake in its history".

As for Mackenzie, he is still refusing to apologise to the families of the 96 people that died in the disaster.

To call for the return of this man displays amazing ignorance and insensitivity. A simple google search can tell you all you need to know about him.

Inexcusable.

Gareth Roberts



Words fail me

[Igor Zidane]

Get feckin in there

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8283549.stm

[NANNY RED]

Get feckin in there

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8283549.stm

FECKING TREMENDOS THAT WAS iGOR

[tubby]

I hope someone was disciplined for this mistake.

I simply cant believe an oversight of that magnitude could reveal itself on LFC TV of all sites ,well spotted Saint .
LFC TV should be the bastion of all we hold true  ,this type of lethargic work needs to be eradicated its slovenly and lazy   

Sorry I feel bad for asking this but what is wrong with that article?