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.

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.

So Patnick's own grovelling apology is not "evidence", then?



Should have STFU – unless or until he had evidence.



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 [url=http://www.metro.co.uk/news/911821-hillsborough-source-sir-irvine-patnick-deeply-sorry-for-part-in-scandal#ixzz26jBOEGoVhere[/url.

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.

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.



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?



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.

I posted originally before his apology and said he should be stripped of his knighthood for doing what he has now admitted doing.

You have posted this part of the conversation since it, but pretending that the apology hasn't happened.



He has admitted to doing what I have said here he should not have done.

How old are you, BTW? And that's not a random question.

You say that Patnick approached The Sun. MacKenzie has said numerous times that he just took the South Yorkshire press agencies reports of Patnick's statements and that seems to have been his main source.

The police deserve a large proportion of the blame for the disaster, whether The Sun's "Truth" was completely true or completely false. To say they are absolved of any blame if some supporters acted badly is completely and utterly ridiculous.

I'm 38.

So basically, an MP saying "I have been told by two Police Constables that they witnessed PC's being attacked by supporters and rifling through the pockets of the dead and dying." after PC's made those comments directly to him should mean he deserves to be stripped of his knighthood?

IMO the fact that those comments were being made should have been made public record anyway. If true then it painted a picture of the job the police were facing. If false then it shows the level the police were prepared to go to lie their way out of blame.

Indeed.



There are a number of different components to the entire business. The reaction of police – and others – at the time, during the disaster itself, is one.

The cover up is another.

The role of some of the media and politicians is linked with that.



He chose to accept, without question, those comments – even though they were claims of utterly vile behaviour.

There has been no suggestion that he thought: 'Hang on – this is one massive set of accusations you're tarring all these people with: does something smell even remotely fishy?'

He appears to have taken them utterly at face value – and his own apology suggest nothing to suggest that that was not the case.

It's worth remembering that it's generally the political right that accuses the left of blaming victims for what has happened to them: this was exactly what happened here, but for a very specific reason.

The concerns and actions of Margaret Thatcher in demanding the lessening of the criticisms of the police illustrate a political nature to that cover up.

What happened was, in the first instance, a massive cock up. There are all sorts of reasons – one of which appears to be general attitudes toward football fans/the working class, which meant that the senior police officer did not allow in more than one ambulance.

It was followed by a massive cover up, which had a political aspect/context to it. And when it came to 'choosing sides', it is quite clear who the PM of the day chose to side with. It is hard to imagine that other senior politicians of the day did not maintain a similar attitude.

This is what I wrote on Saturday morning. I stand by this.

If evidence if offered that Patnick did offer evidence as fact then I will accept he deserves to be stripped of the knighthood.

But I feel that simply the fact that he was a Tory MP is enough for Mintball.

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?

The victims of Hillsborough were not being blamed. It is generally accepted by everyone that the victims at Hillsborough were practically totally blameless. The allegation was that while the disaster was ongoing, while people were being crushed and killed, other supporters took advantage of them and chose to steal, abuse the police and engage in further hooligan activity.

Both of those could be true. It does not reflect upon the innocent victim if some other supporters acted in a vile manner.

IMO though, treating all LFC fans as one large group means that hooligans are linked to the young kids who died. The hooligans benefit from that, and IMO it's disgusting.



I'm not even discussing Thatcher. ATM I cannot even get you to put up a decent case against Patnick, so I'm not even going to start discussing Thatcher.



The biggest mistake was not to delay the start of the game when things were clearly starting to be a problem.

The ambulance issue is a massive issue, but it does depend on whether there was an issue of hooligans gaining entry through that access.



And if that's true then it should be easy to prove Patnick's wrongdoing. But trying and convicting Patnick on that is similar to blaming Hillsborough on the hooligans.

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?