It cannot be right (Sun £9.50 train vouchers)

qetu1357

LunaLady wrote: »

Why did it take 23 years when the facts as the police presented them came into question much, much sooner.

He said it to save his own bacon, not because he felt he needed to apologise.

I agree that it took too long for the truth to come out and too long for the Sun etc to apologise but I maintain that at the time they thought they were telling the truth.

System

qetu1357 wrote: »

You really shouldn't assume that just someone doesn't agree with you that they are either gullible or dumb. I don't of you so why do you of me?

And have you read the Hillsborough Report?

http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/report/HIP_report.pdf

Where does that say the Sun intentionally lied or was part of a consipracy to tell lies?

I don't believe the investigation was involved in investigating the sun. It was interested in investigating what happened with the police, before, during and after the incident.

I don't see why they would have referenced the Sun at all!

qetu1357

goater78 wrote: »

I don't believe the investigation was involved in investigating the sun. It was interested in investigating what happened with the police, before, during and after the incident.

I don't see why they would have referenced the Sun at all!

But it did, cut and paste from the report

Chapter 12. Behind the headlines: the origins, promotion and reproduction of unsubstantiated allegations
In the days after the disaster the media, particularly the press, published allegations and counter-allegations apportioning blame. This came to a head on 19 April when a number of newspapers, The Sun being the most prominent, reported serious allegations about the behaviour of Liverpool fans before and during the unfolding tragedy. The documents disclosed to the Panel show that the origin of these serious allegations was a local Sheffield press agency informed by several SYP officers, an SYP Police Federation spokesperson and a local MP. They also demonstrate how the SYP Police Federation, supported informally by the SYP Chief Constable, sought to develop and publicise a version of events that focused on several police officers’ allegations of drunkenness, ticketlessness and violence among a large number of Liverpool fans. This extended beyond the media to Parliament. Yet, from the mass of documents, television and CCTV coverage disclosed to the Panel there is no evidence to support these allegations other than a few isolated examples of aggressive or verbally abusive behaviour clearly reflecting frustration and desperation. 140. As the severity of the disaster was becoming apparent, SYP Match Commander, Chief Superintendent David Duckenfield, told a falsehood to senior officials that Liverpool fans had broken into the stadium and caused an inrush into the central pens thus causing the fatal crush. While later discredited, this unfounded allegation was broadcast internationally and was the first explanation of the cause of the disaster to enter the public domain. 141. Within days, further serious allegations emerged from unnamed sources, a Police Federation spokesperson and a local Conservative MP, Irvine Patnick. These were that Liverpool fans had conspired to arrive late, many were without tickets, were exceptionally drunk and aggressive and determined to force entry into the stadium.25
142. On 19 April, four days after the disaster, The Sun newspaper published a front-page story under the banner headline, ‘THE TRUTH’, alleging that Liverpool fans had assaulted and urinated on police officers resuscitating the dying, stolen from the dead and verbally sexually abused an unconscious young woman. Although less prominently, and often with a lesser degree of certainty, other regional and national newspapers published similar allegations. 143. In a letter revealed to the Panel, within days of The Sun’s article its Managing Editor wrote to people, including bereaved families, who had complained about the allegations. While regretting the presentation of the article, he refused to apologise for its ‘substance’, claiming it was factually accurate. Subsequently the coverage was condemned by the Press Council. 144. Given the broader press reporting of the allegations, the Panel sought to establish their origins. Documents disclosed to the Panel show that the allegations were filed by White’s News Agency, a Sheffield-based company. They were based on meetings over three days between agency staff and several police officers, together with interviews with Irvine Patnick MP and the South Yorkshire Police Federation Secretary, Paul Middup. 145. From the documents, it is clear that Mr Patnick based his comments on a conversation with police officers on the evening of the disaster while the officers were in considerable distress. Mr Patnick submitted a detailed account of this meeting and his overall involvement that evening to the Taylor Inquiry. 146. Months after the disaster White’s News Agency confirmed to the London Evening Standard that its filed stories originated from ‘unsolicited’ allegations made by ‘high ranking’ SYP officers to agency ‘partners’. There were four separate police sources plus the interview with Mr Patnick. Together these sources were considered sufficient verification for the story to be considered factually accurate and it was distributed accordingly. 147. A document disclosed to the Panel shows that while the Taylor Inquiry was in session White’s News Agency received copies of several SYP officers’ sworn statements alleging drunken and violent behaviour by Liverpool fans. The agency forwarded the statements to Mr Patnick. 148. A further document records a meeting in Sheffield of Police Federation members on the morning of the publication of the controversial story in The Sun. The Police Federation Secretary, Mr Middup, confirmed that ‘putting our side of the story over to the press and media’ had been his priority. He told the meeting that the Chief Constable had stated that ‘the truth could not come from him’ but he had given the Police Federation a ‘free hand’ and his support. 149. At the meeting police officers repeated many of the allegations published in the media. The Chief Constable joined the meeting and advised that the SYP case had to be pulled together and given to the Inquiry. A ‘defence’ had to be prepared and a ‘rock solid story’ presented. He believed that the Force would be ‘exonerated’ by the Taylor Inquiry and considered that ‘blame’ should be directed towards ‘drunken ticketless individuals’. 150. Lord Justice Taylor’s Interim Report condemned the evidence and testimony of senior police officers and rejected as exaggerated the allegations made against 26
Liverpool fans. He stated categorically that fans’ behaviour played no part in the disaster. The South Yorkshire Police Federation held a meeting in Sheffield attended by its Parliamentary representative, Michael Shersby MP. Records of the meeting disclosed to the Panel show that the Police Federation considered the Interim Report was unfair and unbalanced. Mr Shersby was invited to assist in the development of a ‘counter attack’ to ‘repudiate’ Lord Justice Taylor’s findings. 151. The meeting’s afternoon session heard from unnamed police officers who repeated the allegations of exceptional levels of abuse, drunkenness and violence. The Interim Report was dismissed as a ‘whitewash’ and the meeting would provide the basis for promoting the police version of events through ‘public channels’. The meeting’s content, particularly the allegations, directly informed an article published subsequently in the Police Federation magazine. It was written by its editor who attended and contributed to the meetings. 152. In a press interview the South Yorkshire Chief Constable, Peter Wright, also criticised the findings of the Interim Report and expressed confidence that a ‘different picture’ would emerge at the inquests. His comments drew many complaints and were investigated by WMP. It was decided that no breach of discipline had occurred. 153. Consistent with Lord Justice Taylor’s findings, the Panel found no evidence among the vast number of disclosed documents and many hours of video material to verify the serious allegations of exceptional levels of drunkenness, ticketlessness or violence among Liverpool fans. There was no evidence that fans had conspired to arrive late at the stadium and force entry and no evidence that they stole from the dead and dying. Documents show that fans became frustrated by the inadequate response to the unfolding tragedy. The vast majority of fans on the pitch assisted in rescuing and evacuating the injured and the dead.

pmduk

ivavoucher wrote: »

You wouldn't want sun readers armed with travel documents would you, best to keep them static I say.

Locked up under the Mental Health Act, for their own safety, would be preferable.

qetu1357

pmduk wrote: »

Locked up under the Mental Health Act, for their own safety, would be preferable.

Perhaps you should write for the Sun?

holidaysforme

Calling the Sun a newspaper is rather like calling beans on toast a gourmet meal. (not that there is anything wrong with beans on toast, but you get my drift) or maybe not if you read the sun:rotfl:
It's a putrid rag 'read' by morons with the collective IQ of a fly. and i wouldn't have it anywhere near me or mine.
I have done many sun holidays, but i would never buy the 'paper' to do it. They simply send me a code and i book online.
I simply wouldn't soil my hands by actually buying it:)

System

qetu1357 wrote: »

But it did, cut and paste from the report

Chapter 12. Behind the headlines: the origins, promotion and reproduction of unsubstantiated allegations
In the days after the disaster the media, particularly the press, published allegations and counter-allegations apportioning blame. This came to a head on 19 April when a number of newspapers, The Sun being the most prominent, reported serious allegations about the behaviour of Liverpool fans before and during the unfolding tragedy. The documents disclosed to the Panel show that the origin of these serious allegations was a local Sheffield press agency informed by several SYP officers, an SYP Police Federation spokesperson and a local MP. They also demonstrate how the SYP Police Federation, supported informally by the SYP Chief Constable, sought to develop and publicise a version of events that focused on several police officers’ allegations of drunkenness, ticketlessness and violence among a large number of Liverpool fans. This extended beyond the media to Parliament. Yet, from the mass of documents, television and CCTV coverage disclosed to the Panel there is no evidence to support these allegations other than a few isolated examples of aggressive or verbally abusive behaviour clearly reflecting frustration and desperation. 140. As the severity of the disaster was becoming apparent, SYP Match Commander, Chief Superintendent David Duckenfield, told a falsehood to senior officials that Liverpool fans had broken into the stadium and caused an inrush into the central pens thus causing the fatal crush. While later discredited, this unfounded allegation was broadcast internationally and was the first explanation of the cause of the disaster to enter the public domain. 141. Within days, further serious allegations emerged from unnamed sources, a Police Federation spokesperson and a local Conservative MP, Irvine Patnick. These were that Liverpool fans had conspired to arrive late, many were without tickets, were exceptionally drunk and aggressive and determined to force entry into the stadium.25
142. On 19 April, four days after the disaster, The Sun newspaper published a front-page story under the banner headline, ‘THE TRUTH’, alleging that Liverpool fans had assaulted and urinated on police officers resuscitating the dying, stolen from the dead and verbally sexually abused an unconscious young woman. Although less prominently, and often with a lesser degree of certainty, other regional and national newspapers published similar allegations. 143. In a letter revealed to the Panel, within days of The Sun’s article its Managing Editor wrote to people, including bereaved families, who had complained about the allegations. While regretting the presentation of the article, he refused to apologise for its ‘substance’, claiming it was factually accurate. Subsequently the coverage was condemned by the Press Council. 144. Given the broader press reporting of the allegations, the Panel sought to establish their origins. Documents disclosed to the Panel show that the allegations were filed by White’s News Agency, a Sheffield-based company. They were based on meetings over three days between agency staff and several police officers, together with interviews with Irvine Patnick MP and the South Yorkshire Police Federation Secretary, Paul Middup. 145. From the documents, it is clear that Mr Patnick based his comments on a conversation with police officers on the evening of the disaster while the officers were in considerable distress. Mr Patnick submitted a detailed account of this meeting and his overall involvement that evening to the Taylor Inquiry. 146. Months after the disaster White’s News Agency confirmed to the London Evening Standard that its filed stories originated from ‘unsolicited’ allegations made by ‘high ranking’ SYP officers to agency ‘partners’. There were four separate police sources plus the interview with Mr Patnick. Together these sources were considered sufficient verification for the story to be considered factually accurate and it was distributed accordingly. 147. A document disclosed to the Panel shows that while the Taylor Inquiry was in session White’s News Agency received copies of several SYP officers’ sworn statements alleging drunken and violent behaviour by Liverpool fans. The agency forwarded the statements to Mr Patnick. 148. A further document records a meeting in Sheffield of Police Federation members on the morning of the publication of the controversial story in The Sun. The Police Federation Secretary, Mr Middup, confirmed that ‘putting our side of the story over to the press and media’ had been his priority. He told the meeting that the Chief Constable had stated that ‘the truth could not come from him’ but he had given the Police Federation a ‘free hand’ and his support. 149. At the meeting police officers repeated many of the allegations published in the media. The Chief Constable joined the meeting and advised that the SYP case had to be pulled together and given to the Inquiry. A ‘defence’ had to be prepared and a ‘rock solid story’ presented. He believed that the Force would be ‘exonerated’ by the Taylor Inquiry and considered that ‘blame’ should be directed towards ‘drunken ticketless individuals’. 150. Lord Justice Taylor’s Interim Report condemned the evidence and testimony of senior police officers and rejected as exaggerated the allegations made against 26
Liverpool fans. He stated categorically that fans’ behaviour played no part in the disaster. The South Yorkshire Police Federation held a meeting in Sheffield attended by its Parliamentary representative, Michael Shersby MP. Records of the meeting disclosed to the Panel show that the Police Federation considered the Interim Report was unfair and unbalanced. Mr Shersby was invited to assist in the development of a ‘counter attack’ to ‘repudiate’ Lord Justice Taylor’s findings. 151. The meeting’s afternoon session heard from unnamed police officers who repeated the allegations of exceptional levels of abuse, drunkenness and violence. The Interim Report was dismissed as a ‘whitewash’ and the meeting would provide the basis for promoting the police version of events through ‘public channels’. The meeting’s content, particularly the allegations, directly informed an article published subsequently in the Police Federation magazine. It was written by its editor who attended and contributed to the meetings. 152. In a press interview the South Yorkshire Chief Constable, Peter Wright, also criticised the findings of the Interim Report and expressed confidence that a ‘different picture’ would emerge at the inquests. His comments drew many complaints and were investigated by WMP. It was decided that no breach of discipline had occurred. 153. Consistent with Lord Justice Taylor’s findings, the Panel found no evidence among the vast number of disclosed documents and many hours of video material to verify the serious allegations of exceptional levels of drunkenness, ticketlessness or violence among Liverpool fans. There was no evidence that fans had conspired to arrive late at the stadium and force entry and no evidence that they stole from the dead and dying. Documents show that fans became frustrated by the inadequate response to the unfolding tragedy. The vast majority of fans on the pitch assisted in rescuing and evacuating the injured and the dead.

Yes but they haven't investigated the journalistic practices of the sun. They have just said that they printed incorrect allegations about the behaviour of Liverpool fans.

The other mainstream papers felt no need to publish this story. Probably because unlike the Sun they realised that there was no evidence that proved this happened.

I think this is what I hate most about the Sun. They print lies based on gossip and speculation which is then seen as the truth by many of its readers.

Not all Sun readers are bad people. I occasionally buy it myself on the weekend as I like the sports section. Its just a terrible paper for news!

Azari

qetu1357 wrote: »

Ahh such snobbery towards Sun readers.............

If you look at the readership mix you will see that the Sun has more readers from the higher socioeconomic groups that the Guardian....

Did you read that in the Sun? :rotfl:

qetu1357

goater78 wrote: »

Yes but they haven't investigated the journalistic practices of the sun. They have just said that they printed incorrect allegations about the behaviour of Liverpool fans.

The other mainstream papers felt no need to publish this story. Probably because unlike the Sun they realised that there was no evidence that proved this happened.

I think this is what I hate most about the Sun. They print lies based on gossip and speculation which is then seen as the truth by many of its readers.

Not all Sun readers are bad people. I occasionally buy it myself on the weekend as I like the sports section. Its just a terrible paper for news!

I always find it fascinating how you (and others) can see through the lies/spin but you assume that others cannot.

And I find it fascinating the clear snobbery that some people have for consumers of mass media.

Here's something from the Guardian about how much people trust media

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2012/jan/24/phone-hacking

This shows that 14% of people trust tabloids and 68% don't.

I still maintain the Sun didn't intentionally lie about Hillsborough but they were misled.

System

qetu1357 wrote: »

I always find it fascinating how you (and others) can see through the lies/spin but you assume that others cannot.

And I find it fascinating the clear snobbery that some people have for consumers of mass media.

Here's something from the Guardian about how much people trust media

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2012/jan/24/phone-hacking

This shows that 14% of people trust tabloids and 68% don't.

I still maintain the Sun didn't intentionally lie about Hillsborough but they were misled.

You don't think its bad taste that 4 days after a tragic event like Hillsborough for a newspaper to post a story on the front page which says is large font "THE TRUTH". The article then went on to claim (again in bold font) the following claims

1) - Liverpool fans picked the pockets of the victims
2) - Liverpool fans urinated on police officers
3) - Liverpool fans beat up a policeman who was trying to resuscitate a fan.

You can defend "the Sun" all you like but there was only one paper that did this.

Another thing that annoys me about the Sun is the line in the story was actually "Some fans beat up PC giving kiss of life". They use the phrase "kiss of life" as they are not confident all their readers understand what the word "resuscitate" means!