Hillsborough Disaster: Fans Unlawfully Killed

[mikey4444]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36138337

At last...the truth is out.

Some important points from the above :::

Police failures led to the deaths in the 1989 Hillsborough disaster.

Jurors answered yes to the question about whether any police error caused or contributed to a dangerous situation at the 1989 FA Cup semi-final.

The behaviour of Liverpool fans did not contribute to the dangerous situation at the turnstiles.

[retrocop]

Mikey
Well spotted but why single out just those two. What about the Express and Mail's front page? Selective journalism?

[mikey4444]

Retro....look again...the DM and the Express has it right at the top of the cover.

[retrocop]

Both the Mail and Express relegated the inquiry result to the inside pages as did the Sun and Times. None of them featured it as front Page news as far as I can see.

[retrocop]

Its academic really. The whole country knows the outcome.

[naomi24]

Mikey, do you think the failure of some newspapers to lead with this story is some sort of conspiracy?

[mikey4444]

Retro....don't you think that is extraordinary ?

Yesterday, the biggest and most important story in Britain was the outcome of the Inquest, and yet the Sun and the Times didn't think it was important
enough to even mention it in passing on their front ages. The DM and Express did at least give it some coverage on the front.

[mikey4444]

Naomi ...no I don't but read my reply to Retro.

Why do you think that todays Sun and Times are like they are ? Even taking into account the Suns poor sales in Liverpool, its still seems bizarre.

[jno]

naomi, the list is here (you may have to look as it quckly, I don't know how long they last) - it seems to include everyone, even the FT (though only its UK edition, no doubt)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-36147007

The Times did have second thoughts about omitting it in their first edition

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/apr/27/the-times-has-second-thoughts-about-its-hillsborough-coverage

[jim360]

When the Times does get around to talking about Hillsborough, it's pretty scathing about the 27-year-long cover-up. Two double-page spreads, a leader article, prominent coverage on the back page, photographs of all the victims, and a couple of articles that were so full of anger that it came off the page and hit me in the face as I was reading it. Too much can be made of the front pages, perhaps.

[naomi24]

Thanks jno.

Mikey, I haven’t seen hard copies of those two newspapers today, but I’ve had a look on-line and they are carrying the story. The Sun’s heading reads “Greatest Miscarriage of Justice”, and The Times “Hillsborough Police Chief could avoid trial for unlawful deaths”, so I don’t really know where you’re coming from with this.

[mikey4444]

jno..its seems that we have the Times own football correspondent to thank for encouraging the Editor to make a second edition. Extraordinary that it didn't do it in the first place. Still puzzled by the Sun though.

[mikey4444]

Naomi...there is no indication in my link above of the Sun making any reference to Hillsborough on its front page today. The Times did change its mind however. I shall call into ASDA later and have a look at a Sun when I am there.

[Gavmacp]

Mikey,
Genuinely not wishing to be rude but isn't discussing how this is being reported being rather petty?

[mikey4444]

No, I don't think so.

[Gavmacp]

We all know why they have taken this stance. They should of apologised to the people of Liverpool years ago or more importantly had genuine facts before printing what they did.

[naomi24]

Mikey, If you say this is not some sort of conspiracy, I still don't understand what you think is going on with the two newspapers you mentioned.

[Svejk]

Petty, bitter & twisted.

[mushroom25]

//They should of (sic) apologised to the people of Liverpool years ago or more importantly had genuine facts before printing what they did.//

they should definitely have carefully considered the way they reported what they did on that wednesday after the tragedy. but when the official line - from SYP right up to the prime minister - was what it was only days after the event, Kelvin McKenzie might have imagined he was telling the truth.

the official line as expressed at the time was represented by this letter from Sir Bernard Ingham. in 2013 he still stood by that view. i wonder if he still does?

http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/sir-bernard-ingham-the-disgraceful-letter-margaret-thatchers-aide-sent-to-hillsborough-campaigners--WkFP4C0obb

[RandyMarsh]

Petty, bitter and twisted bit like comparing it to Heysel all the time.

[andy-hughes]

Gavmcp - //Mikey,
Genuinely not wishing to be rude but isn't discussing how this is being reported being rather petty? //

Far from being petty, Mikey makes a very valid point - the unwillingness of the Murdoch titles to draw attention to their dreadful coverage at the time - which today makes a sale of The Sun in Liverpool a rarity.

The Sun was well to the fore in the scurrilous and disproven accusations that the tragedy happened because feckless ticketless drunken Liverpool supporters were the direct cause. The Sun was keen to let the police get their own version of events in first - which have since been roundly trashed and condemned as utterly without foundation.