Hillsborough disaster: Was it ever proven that there was any truth in The

  • Thread starter Thread starter thebigkahuna
  • Start date Start date
T

thebigkahuna

Guest
Suns disgusting headlines? I do not mean to be in any way insensitive but I was only 5 years old at the time, and in light of the 20th anniversary of the tragedy I wondered if any of The Suns disgusting headlines ie 'Some fans urinated on the brave cops' and 'Some fans picked pockets of victims' were ever proven to be true?
Cheers.
 
I don't know how anyone who wasn't there would ever really know, obviously its sensitive, but I don't know the truth not being there.
I've an open mind really, it may or may not have happened, I'll never know.
 
I don't think they can apologise enough. That was one of the Sun's most disgusting ramblings. They are and continue to be a sensationalist paper, devoted to creating their drivel rather than reporting the truth. I never trust what they write.
 
The Sun apologised, but former sun editor still stands by what he wrote...I guess we'll never know...Its never going to proved one way or another with such an ambiguous word as "some". I don't think legal action has ever been taken against Mr McKenzie.
 
I have NEVER trusted what's written in the Sun. Most of the time, they just copy articles from other papers and add buzz words like "savage, ruthless, blood thirsty etc" to make it seem sensational.
They could make any random story horrifying, for example, a story about a cat getting run over in an accident in to "Ruthless driver mows down defenceless kitten in cold blood!"

If you disagree, check newspapers published a day or two before the Sun, such as The mail, Times and others. You'll see a majority of the stories there almost word for word.

They'll never retract their stories. Ever. Makes em look bad.
 
I have NEVER trusted what's written in the Sun. Most of the time, they just copy articles from other papers and add buzz words like "savage, ruthless, blood thirsty etc" to make it seem sensational.
They could make any random story horrifying, for example, a story about a cat getting run over in an accident in to "Ruthless driver mows down defenceless kitten in cold blood!"

If you disagree, check newspapers published a day or two before the Sun, such as The mail, Times and others. You'll see a majority of the stories there almost word for word.

They'll never retract their stories. Ever. Makes em look bad.
 
Of course they weren't true, this is the same paper that tried to get the Beastie boys banned from Britain by claiming they went into a childrens ward at the hospital and laughed at the children with cancer! like FFS yeah devout Buddhists do that sort of thing. In hillsborough all the fans tried to pull the fencing down and so did the cops, nobody picked anybodys pocket nobody urinated on anybodys head
 
No they were all lies.

It was a tragic set of cirmcumstances that lead to this disaster. The Liverpool fans were not in anyway to blame. Nor did they do anything to the dead or dying other than offer assistance where and if they could.

EDIT - Please ignore those that make statements about who was doing the pushing it has nothing to do with either your question on the Sun article nor on what happened.

Liverpool despite having the largest fan base had the smaller end so yes there were some fans who turned up without tickets. It happens at every major sporting event in the contry (also remember this was before ebay so ticket touts were where you got tickets from). There were Forest fans without tickets buying them just before the game - nothing new still happens at football matches, cricket games and music concerts.

But the it was a catalogue of events starting with unannouced roadworks on the M62 between Manchester and Leeds meaning many coaches and cars with fans in arrived late to the game. The FA nor the police delayed the kickoff despite thousands of fans not being in the ground. There was a crush at the front as people behind moved forward. The police called that is was safer to open the large gates that fans used to exit the staduim to ease the crush outside. The fans moved forward and most headed to the centre behind the goal. A huge cheer went up from the Liverpool fans as Peter Beardsley nearly scored. Fans moved quicker to find out what was happening..... And the rest is history.

So to the tw@t below who wasn't there and blames the people that he has read about in the Sun this is who you can blame.

1. The highways agency for failing to annouce roadworks.
2. The FA for refusing to delay the kick off and making annoucments outside the ground to that effect.
3. The police for opening the gate - although I think that could have caused deaths outside the ground.
4. The animals of the 1970's and 1980's that invaded the pitches in the first place leading to the fences being put up.

The people who are there or had relatives there do not care for your ill advised rubbish.
 
I don't know about that but the deaths were caused by the Liverpool fans and everyone knows it .
 
Kelvin Mckenzie was responsible for this smear campaign and yet despite not one single SOLITARY witness to any of these acts apart from his one 'source' who he refuses to name.

It was done as it ias always done to increase circulation - hence why when they bought the rights To Wayne Rooney's life story due to the backlash in Liverpool they offered to apologise for all that was written under the headline of 'The Truth'. It was rejected vehemently on the grounds that the motivating factor was yet again to increase circulation due to the interest in Rooney in his home city. I think that speaks volumes that an apology materialised at that time.

Fans were pissing everywhere due to crush injuries..frantic scrabbles for id...

It's an abhorrence..that people still think there is a grain of truth and wish to remain 'open minded' (lol not so on other news matters they no fck all about though due to not being there either..lol again )..it just didn't happen.

Smear campaign pure and simple.
 
I have only recently understood what The Sun actually reported on the disaster, not being overly familiar with it.

I now truly understand why the paper is viewed in the light it is.

As mentioned, the fact not a single solitary witness or source was cited in those articles speaks volumes. I also see there are a fair number of Sun subscribers on this page, including a militant racist.

The articles must have been a terrific insult on a city that already had lost enough through the disaster. I read the original editor has never apologised - what does that indicate? Not that there was any truth in it, but that he would never DARE admit he allowed such awful falsifications.

As a final point... like a solar-powered torch, the notion of an 'open-minded Sun reader' is totally laughable!!!
 
Back
Top