[url=http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/mackenzie-hillsborough-lies/2697'Why Kelvin MacKenzie won't tell the truth.'[/url

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.

and???

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.

Quote ="Mintball"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.'" 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: hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/ ... 010001.pdf Quote Last night, Sheffield Tory MP, Irvine Patnick, backed up police claims that Liverpool fans attacked and urinated on them as they tended the injured and dying. He said: I spoke to many policemen in the makeshift mortuary aftenwards. They told me they were hampered, harassed, punched, kicked and urinated on by Liverpool fans. I have kept quiet about this because I did not want to inflame a delicate situation. But it is a fact that these are the stories they told me and they had no reason to lie, I saw the bruising on their bodies and the state they were in and there is no doubt in my mind it is true, All this happened to them and yet they carried on doing their job trying to save lives and now they are being blamed, One important question that must be answered is what part alcohol played in this whole tragic business'.'" 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. Quote Together with trying to smear the panel as biased.'" 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.

Quote ="Mintball"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.'" 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: hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/ ... 010001.pdf Quote Last night, Sheffield Tory MP, Irvine Patnick, backed up police claims that Liverpool fans attacked and urinated on them as they tended the injured and dying. He said: I spoke to many policemen in the makeshift mortuary aftenwards. They told me they were hampered, harassed, punched, kicked and urinated on by Liverpool fans. I have kept quiet about this because I did not want to inflame a delicate situation. But it is a fact that these are the stories they told me and they had no reason to lie, I saw the bruising on their bodies and the state they were in and there is no doubt in my mind it is true, All this happened to them and yet they carried on doing their job trying to save lives and now they are being blamed, One important question that must be answered is what part alcohol played in this whole tragic business'.'" 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. Quote Together with trying to smear the panel as biased.'" 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: "there is no doubt in my mind it is true". In other words, he accepted what he had been told as facts – and passed it on as such.



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: The Truth and a producer of McGovern's Hillsborough documentary have no place on an independent panel on Hillsborough...'"

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?

Possibly to deflect attention away from the fact that they were mostly clueless idiots?

No matter what your jaundiced views of Liverpool supporters, you conveniently ignore what can only amount to institutionalised co-ercion and corruption, albeit from those in senior posts but certainly aided and abetted by the lower ranks.

What has emerged is a culture of lying and obfuscation. From the senior police officers in charge on the day, via the sheer ignorance of the FA, the ineptitude of South Yorkshire's other emergency services, politically-motivated briefings to the press, through to the appointment of a patsy of a coroner.

You have managed to come across on this thread as a very bitter Man U supporter, whose hatred of Liverpool FC and its supporters prevents you from actually taking an balanced view of the findings of the Hillsborough Independent Panel

No - just the usual stuff being recycled.

Oh how utterly delicious.
'Oh don't do that Alex!' yes it isn't nice is it Kelvin

Dunno if this has been covered and I'm on my phone so it's hard to check, but did anyone see McKenzie being doorstepped by a C4 News journalist the other day? He didn't enjoy his own medicine one jot. Someone should invade his personal space like thst every day until he dies or leaves the country. Most gratifying.

Minty put it on this thread.

It's class.



I like the ''have you still got a job'' comment.
Prick still thinks he's important.

Ah, yes, just seen. Mobile internet is like dial up round here. I enjoyed it so much, I might watch it again when I get in.

You've just inspired me into a re-watch.

Man United supporter?



It's okay for you to categorize the police as "mostly clueless idiots" but it's not okay to say that the people pushing and trying to force their way in to the stadium were not partly to blame for the disaster happening.

The police were to blame for many, many failures that day. Many of which have been shown, but there will probably be many more which haven't even been shown.

Also to blame for the Hillsborough disaster are the people who were causing the pushing outside the stadium. Especially the people who were trying to gain entry without tickets. To suggest there wasn't people there making the situation worse is simply ridiculous and a lie. The people outside that stadium and causing the crush outside were a very tiny part to blame for the disaster that day.

Personally I place more blame on the football hooligans of the day for the disaster than I do on even those pushing outside the gates. That definitely includes hooligans at my club. So I'm not going to say that hooligans at my club should be partly blamed, even when they weren't even at Hillsborough, and accept the lie that there weren't many Liverpool supporters at Hillsborough that day who deserve partial blame as well.

The Hillsborough families were clearly the ones who caused this report to be written. They definitely didn't want any blame whatsoever placed on any supporters that day. The panel was clearly weighted with people who had prior connections to Hillsborough and were obviously going to give the families what they wanted. One of the main remits of the panel was consider the feelings of the families of the bereaved and report to them and update them regularly.

If the situation was reversed and this was a government report completely absolving a certain section of people from blame then you, Mintball and many other people in the Sin Bin would be all over the report and ripping it to shreds.

Mintball's continual "he passed the rumours on as fact" lies are clear, blatant and stupid. Her posts in this thread have been embarrassing and pathetic. Quoting "Why won’t MacKenzie tell us ‘the truth’ about Hillsborough?" as "Why Kelvin MacKenzie won't tell the truth." is utterly ridiculous and embarrassing. And that was probably one of 50 posts of manure she's made on this thread. But because she's on your side you simply won't, or can't, accept those ridiculous posts and tell her she was wrong.

I only came on here because Mintball made a rare visit to the Football Chat Thread on Other Sports and made the statement that Patnick should have his knighthood stripped. I asked her why on there but she'd left again, so I came on here to get an answer. IMO the resultant pages of posts since then have pretty much proved that all that mattered to Mintball was the fact he was a Tory MP and had been named as a source. That's all that mattered, and that's all she had.

Apologies for labelling you as a bitter Man U supporter.

Having read that tosh, you're not bitter, you are simply stark staring mad.