Re: Kelvin MacKenzie : Mon Sep 17, 2012 9:53 pm  

On the Hillsborough Independent Panel there was the Bishop of Liverpool, Peter Scruton, author of Hillsborough: The Truth and Kate Jones, a producer on McGovern's Hillsborough documentary.

Raju Bhatt had led legal action against South Yorkshire Police over the miners strike.

Peter Sissons was born and raised in Liverpool.

Re: Kelvin MacKenzie : Tue Sep 18, 2012 8:21 am  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

On the Hillsborough Independent Panel there was the Bishop of Liverpool, Peter Scruton, author of Hillsborough: The Truth and Kate Jones, a producer on McGovern's Hillsborough documentary.

Raju Bhatt had led legal action against South Yorkshire Police over the miners strike.

Peter Sissons was born and raised in Liverpool.

Perhaps you should write to the Times and the Prime Minister to complain about your perception of bias, instead of writing on a pretty insignificant internet message board?

Re: Kelvin MacKenzie : Tue Sep 18, 2012 10:01 am  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

... Whether you're here in a professional capacity or not, any journalist with a working brain should know that Patnick never said he passed off rumour as fact. The fact that you cannot make that distinction quickly and easily right now suggests that you are a shoddy journalist, and shows just why journalism in the UK is screwed.

You clearly wouldn't recognise "a working brain" if one got up and smacked across the chops, sunny Jim.

If he reported something to a news agency that he didn't believe was factually correct (ie a fact/facts), then he deserves even more anger.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

On the Hillsborough Independent Panel there was the Bishop of Liverpool, Peter Scruton, author of Hillsborough: The Truth and Kate Jones, a producer on McGovern's Hillsborough documentary.

Raju Bhatt had led legal action against South Yorkshire Police over the miners strike.

Peter Sissons was born and raised in Liverpool.

Oh. So now you're switching tack to try to claim the whole thing was biased.

Presumably the retired police chief and the former Met Police information expert and the doctor were just token appointees, eh? Sat back and just let those biased Scousers run the whole show, ignoring facts and evidence?

Re: Kelvin MacKenzie : Tue Sep 18, 2012 1:35 pm  

Mintball wrote:

If he reported something to a news agency that he didn't believe was factually correct (ie a fact/facts), then he deserves even more anger.

His submission said he had no reason not to believe the officers.

Re: Kelvin MacKenzie : Tue Sep 18, 2012 2:07 pm  

Dally wrote:

His submission said he had no reason not to believe the officers.

Ergo he passed it on – as fact.

Re: Kelvin MacKenzie : Tue Sep 18, 2012 2:48 pm  

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

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

Re: Kelvin MacKenzie : Tue Sep 18, 2012 7:07 pm  

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?

Re: Kelvin MacKenzie : Tue Sep 18, 2012 7:27 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Ergo he passed it on – as fact.

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.

Re: Kelvin MacKenzie : Tue Sep 18, 2012 9:13 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Ergo he passed it on – as fact.

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?

Re: Kelvin MacKenzie : Tue Sep 18, 2012 10:32 pm  

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.