Where to begin? I think it only right, that we begin with the long awaited news last week, of the verdict the public had waited 27 years for. I am of course, talking about the tragic events of the Hillsborough disaster. A dark day, that rocked the world of football, and more importantly, the friends and families of all those who sadly, lost their lives. The date was April 15th 1989, a date many people will never forget. 96 fans, who set out to enjoy an FA cup semi-final, and never came home. 27 years on, and a deep sadness and sorrow still hits home every time we hear, think of, or read about the events of that heartbreaking day. Imagine then, how horrendous the suffering must have been for those connected to the victims, to those who witnessed the most horrific disaster in British sporting history.
Cue The Sun "newspaper". You would expect headlines that conveyed respect for the victims, for their family, friends, the supporters, and for every human being whose heart was broken. Not one ounce of respect was forthcoming from The Sun; the disgraceful 'newspaper' sunk to an all time low. Taken from Hillsborough disaster context and consequence :
"April 19th 1989, The Sun newspaper published its now-infamous story entitled ‘The Truth’, with three sub-headlines which claimed: “some fans picked pockets of victims”, “some fans urinated on the brave cops” and “some fans beat up PC giving the kiss of life.” The story accompanying those headlines claimed “drunken Liverpool fans viciously attacked rescue workers as they tried to revive victims” and “police officers, firemen and ambulance crew were punched, kicked and urinated upon.” The story itself was based on comments made by Irvine Patnick, the MP for Sheffield Hallam, and an unnamed police officer. Patnick, the only Conservative MP in the area, was not even at the game to witness those events. Nevertheless, his comments were widely used. Two days after The Sun’s story, the Home Secretary implied in the House of Commons that 19 police officers had been physically assaulted at the ground and that SYP were collating the information to pass on to the inquiry. However, by May 3rd, following questions from the House, Douglas Hurd was unable to state how those injuries were sustained. No evidence regarding physical assaults on officers was ever passed to the inquiry. In addition, from the thousands of press pictures taken and the 71 hours of recorded video footage taken from five police cameras, 19 SWFC cameras, as well as BBC footage, there was not one single image or image frame to support the allegation. Taylor completely dismissed this argument saying, “Not a single witness supported any of those allegations.”
Words just cannot describe the level of unprofessional journalism that emanated from The Sun. Without a moment's thought for the feelings of anybody involved, the callous Sun newspaper, destroyed lives, and compounded an already unbearable pain, that was ripping through the hearts of so many, based upon the comments of a man who wasn't even at the match, and an unattributable source. Had even the most basic efforts been made to do a few hours of investigative journalism, it would have become apparent, that what The Sun were about to report, was not only unsubstantiated, but infinitely wrong; not just in the factual sense, but from a moral aspect as well.
The outrageous behaviour from The Sun didn't stop there though. I mentioned blackmail. What you are about to read is the most sickening thing I have heard of a journalist doing.
Taken from Redandwhitekop.com , and with thanks to our good friend Nikki Plummer.
"The Sun,
for example, published a photograph of a young boy, Lee Nichol, receiving
resuscitation on the pitch. Lee
died. Juxtaposed to this tragic
photograph was a smaller reproduction of Lee taken at school. The family were deeply upset by the use of
the photographs and made a series of complaints. They were angered by the deception used to
obtain Lee's school photograph. A Sun journalist had called at the family
home and was persistent in his request for a photograph of Lee. They were
reluctant to respond to the request but he stated that without a
"good" photograph of Lee the paper would have to use the one taken on
the pitch. To prevent the publication of the photograph of Lee's death they
provided a school photograph only to find that the Sun used both and gave the explicit photograph prominence."
How low can someone go, just to get a story.
Did The Sun apologise for their sickening actions? Not until 2004; 15 years too late, and somewhat hollow, given that the editor at the time, and the man responsible for the headlines at the time, Kelvin Mackenzie, has, since the apology, been given his job back, not once, but twice by The Sun.
MacKenzie, even had this to say of his own attempt at an "apology":
"All I did wrong there was tell the truth. There was a surge of Liverpool fans who had been drinking and that is what caused the disaster. The only thing different we did was put it under the headline "The Truth". I went on The World at One the next day and apologised. I only did that because Rupert Murdoch told me to. I wasn't sorry then and I'm not sorry now because we told the truth."
Not according to the recent verdict, reached by a jury, which ruled out any possibility of the fans being at fault:"Question 7: behaviour of the supporters
Was there any behaviour on the part of football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles?
Jury’s answer: No.
If your answer to the question above is “no”, then was there any behaviour on the part of football supporters which which may have caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles?
Jury’s answer: No."
In fact, the jury ruled that it was the police who had been responsible for most of the failings at Hillsborough, and also ruled that the fans who died there, were killed unlawfully.
Innocent men, women and children, killed by inept policing, inept policing then covered up by The Sun.
After the verdict, MacKenzie of course changed his tune:
In fact, the jury ruled that it was the police who had been responsible for most of the failings at Hillsborough, and also ruled that the fans who died there, were killed unlawfully.
Innocent men, women and children, killed by inept policing, inept policing then covered up by The Sun.
After the verdict, MacKenzie of course changed his tune:
In a statement he said: “Today’s verdicts are an important step in obtaining justice for the victims. My heart goes out to those who have waited so long for vindication.
“As I have said before, the headline I published was wrong and I am profoundly sorry for the hurt it caused.”
Utter rubbish, MacKenzie has already proved himself to be a duplicitous, detestable, disgrace. His statement is no more sincere than the mouth it fell from.
So highly did MacKenzie regard his reader, that he once described them as:
Utter rubbish, MacKenzie has already proved himself to be a duplicitous, detestable, disgrace. His statement is no more sincere than the mouth it fell from.
So highly did MacKenzie regard his reader, that he once described them as:
"...the bloke you see in the pub, a right old fascist, wants to send the wogs back, buy his poxy council house, he's afraid of the unions, afraid of the Russians, hates the queers and the weirdos and drug dealers. He doesn't want to hear about [proper news]"
Nice chap.
Talking on Sky News’s press preview, the Sun’s political editor, Tom Newton Dunn, said the police were at the “core” of the whole story and the paper was misled by them.
"Misled"? How very convenient, and a perfectly good excuse, except for one fact. The Sun is supposed to be a newspaper, and as such, should make sure that they research stories, especially ones of such a delicate nature, with the utmost care. What Tom Newton should have said is, The Sun allowed themselves to be lied to, they covered up illegal activities for South Yorkshire police, they blamed innocent victims, and that it was they who "misled" the nation.
The Sun newspaper is a relic, it is not something that deserved a place in the 80s, it certainly didn't in the 90s, and it has absolutely no place in society today. This newspaper continually lies, a legacy MacKenzie - "Don't worry if it's not true, so long as there's not too much of a fuss about it afterwards.", will no doubt be proud of.
Talking on Sky News’s press preview, the Sun’s political editor, Tom Newton Dunn, said the police were at the “core” of the whole story and the paper was misled by them.
"Misled"? How very convenient, and a perfectly good excuse, except for one fact. The Sun is supposed to be a newspaper, and as such, should make sure that they research stories, especially ones of such a delicate nature, with the utmost care. What Tom Newton should have said is, The Sun allowed themselves to be lied to, they covered up illegal activities for South Yorkshire police, they blamed innocent victims, and that it was they who "misled" the nation.
The Sun newspaper is a relic, it is not something that deserved a place in the 80s, it certainly didn't in the 90s, and it has absolutely no place in society today. This newspaper continually lies, a legacy MacKenzie - "Don't worry if it's not true, so long as there's not too much of a fuss about it afterwards.", will no doubt be proud of.
Even the day after the verdict, The Sun's front page was notably lacking something that all the others, bar The Times, (The Sun's sister paper) covered in full. In fact there was no mention of the verdict, until page 8, seemingly a headline about David Cameron, a topless woman, and 7 pages of other 'news', were deemed more important.
Nothing The Sun have done, can be ever be on a level with the atrocious way in which they handled the Hillsborough disaster, however it is important to be noted, that still to this day, they are actively involved in cover ups on a grand scale.
Take for example The Sun's coverage of the case of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Their commitment to lying, smearing others, and making sure, that at all costs, Madeleine's parents are painted in a good light, is second to none. Only this week we were treated to the headline "Maddie cop sick secret". The headline was of course referring to Goncalo Amaral, the coordinator of the original investigation that sought to discover what happened to Madeleine McCann. Upon reading though, it becomes apparent that the headline has no bearing upon the article. There was no "sick secret", no revelation, and nothing but rehashed news, relating to how a gofundme page was set up to assist Goncalo Amaral, with his legal fees, after the McCanns instigated a civil case against him. People who donated were labelled trolls, and four were named. As it has transpired, three appeal judges unanimously found Amaral, not guilty. Why then would The Sun go on the attack? Why, because The Sun employ Antonella Lazzeri, a close friend of the McCanns. Lazzeri has written many articles on behalf of the McCanns, this week she provided two; both factually incorrect, both biased, and both with one aim only. More about that later.
It is quite stunning that after the death of Brenda Leyland, a woman hounded by the press, having been doorstepped by Sky News, after discussing the McCann case on twitter, that The Sun would risk the same tragic events happening again. Some supporters of the McCanns attacked Brenda in the most nauseating manner. Threats to rape Brenda, burn her house down, murder her, and more were posted on social media. Some McCann 'supporters', laughed at her suicide, and still, to this day, make a joke of it.
Incredible then, that Antonella Lazzeri was tempting fate again.
Not satisfied with her attempts to attack anybody who questions the McCanns' version of events, and to potentially risk another suicide, Lazzeri embarks on yet another fairytale. She writes a new article, stating that British police, are investigating one more lead; that Madeleine was taken in a burglary gone wrong. Again this is old news, and there is no source to give any credence to her claim, that this line of inquiry is the last one, or indeed that it is even a theory that is being looked into at all.
With the headline "Brit cops know who snatched Maddie", Lazzeri spins her socks off. She includes quotes from a unattributable member of the police force, stating nothing we didn't hear two years ago, before totally contradicting herself, and finishing on the note of:
"Scotland Yard refused to discuss the final line of inquiry for operational purposes. A spokesman said: 'There is no comment while there is an on-going investigation."
Let's read that again:"Scotland Yard refused to discuss the final line of inquiry for operational purposes. A spokesman said: 'There is no comment while there is an on-going investigation."
How does Lazzeri get from "Brit cops know who snatched Maddie", to Scotland Yard refused to comment?
Lazzeri also mentions three people who were questioned by the police, as were hundreds of others, and insinuates that it is they who are indeed the suspects, does she base this upon an official source? Not on your nelly, she uses the view of a blogger, a blogger who states he has no evidence to back up what he is saying. Top marks Lazzeri, Kate and Gerry will be pleased. Here's some evidence for you to read, perhaps you'll share this to the few readers you have left.
CLICK HERE TO READ 21 FACT ABOUT THE MADELEINE McCANN CASE
Or perhaps, you might direct your readers to the official police files. The files that Kate and Gerry McCann had translated at a cost of 100k to those who donated to help find Madeleine. The very same files that Kate and Gerry won't publicly release, or promote, despite the fact that it could jog the memory of someone reading them.
CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE McCANN PJ FILES
I wouldn't recommend holding your breath. The Sun newspaper, is without rival when it comes to covering up crimes, and spinning for cash.
A more cynical man would say Lazzeri was working under orders. It's certainly a theory that should be explored.
Nothing The Sun have done, can be ever be on a level with the atrocious way in which they handled the Hillsborough disaster, however it is important to be noted, that still to this day, they are actively involved in cover ups on a grand scale.
Take for example The Sun's coverage of the case of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Their commitment to lying, smearing others, and making sure, that at all costs, Madeleine's parents are painted in a good light, is second to none. Only this week we were treated to the headline "Maddie cop sick secret". The headline was of course referring to Goncalo Amaral, the coordinator of the original investigation that sought to discover what happened to Madeleine McCann. Upon reading though, it becomes apparent that the headline has no bearing upon the article. There was no "sick secret", no revelation, and nothing but rehashed news, relating to how a gofundme page was set up to assist Goncalo Amaral, with his legal fees, after the McCanns instigated a civil case against him. People who donated were labelled trolls, and four were named. As it has transpired, three appeal judges unanimously found Amaral, not guilty. Why then would The Sun go on the attack? Why, because The Sun employ Antonella Lazzeri, a close friend of the McCanns. Lazzeri has written many articles on behalf of the McCanns, this week she provided two; both factually incorrect, both biased, and both with one aim only. More about that later.
It is quite stunning that after the death of Brenda Leyland, a woman hounded by the press, having been doorstepped by Sky News, after discussing the McCann case on twitter, that The Sun would risk the same tragic events happening again. Some supporters of the McCanns attacked Brenda in the most nauseating manner. Threats to rape Brenda, burn her house down, murder her, and more were posted on social media. Some McCann 'supporters', laughed at her suicide, and still, to this day, make a joke of it.
Incredible then, that Antonella Lazzeri was tempting fate again.
Not satisfied with her attempts to attack anybody who questions the McCanns' version of events, and to potentially risk another suicide, Lazzeri embarks on yet another fairytale. She writes a new article, stating that British police, are investigating one more lead; that Madeleine was taken in a burglary gone wrong. Again this is old news, and there is no source to give any credence to her claim, that this line of inquiry is the last one, or indeed that it is even a theory that is being looked into at all.
With the headline "Brit cops know who snatched Maddie", Lazzeri spins her socks off. She includes quotes from a unattributable member of the police force, stating nothing we didn't hear two years ago, before totally contradicting herself, and finishing on the note of:
"Scotland Yard refused to discuss the final line of inquiry for operational purposes. A spokesman said: 'There is no comment while there is an on-going investigation."
Let's read that again:"Scotland Yard refused to discuss the final line of inquiry for operational purposes. A spokesman said: 'There is no comment while there is an on-going investigation."
How does Lazzeri get from "Brit cops know who snatched Maddie", to Scotland Yard refused to comment?
Lazzeri also mentions three people who were questioned by the police, as were hundreds of others, and insinuates that it is they who are indeed the suspects, does she base this upon an official source? Not on your nelly, she uses the view of a blogger, a blogger who states he has no evidence to back up what he is saying. Top marks Lazzeri, Kate and Gerry will be pleased. Here's some evidence for you to read, perhaps you'll share this to the few readers you have left.
CLICK HERE TO READ 21 FACT ABOUT THE MADELEINE McCANN CASE
Or perhaps, you might direct your readers to the official police files. The files that Kate and Gerry McCann had translated at a cost of 100k to those who donated to help find Madeleine. The very same files that Kate and Gerry won't publicly release, or promote, despite the fact that it could jog the memory of someone reading them.
CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE McCANN PJ FILES
I wouldn't recommend holding your breath. The Sun newspaper, is without rival when it comes to covering up crimes, and spinning for cash.
A more cynical man would say Lazzeri was working under orders. It's certainly a theory that should be explored.
The Canary recently reported on a High Court Judge's ruling, that there is enough evidence to begin a case against the publication for phone hacking.
READ MORE HERE
I have only touched upon two subjects that The Sun have lied about. Of course there are many, many more. How often do we hear people say the words, "Oh it's The Sun, don't believe what you read in there"? The fact is though, people do believe it, either knowingly or subliminally.
The following is a link to a blog that has clearly spent a lot of time exposing the many lies in The Sun. Have a look, and remind yourselves just how the publication has no place on the racks of any newsagent. The Sun Lies
How many more scandals can The Sun ride out?
How many more of their employees will be hauled before the courts accused of illegal activities?
The people of Liverpool, and many more have spoken out. The Sun has already lost millions of pounds worth of revenue because of it's lies, smears, and cover ups. We can stop it before any court does. The answer is simple, and it's one that everybody in this country can help achieve.
The answer is:
Don't buy The Sun.
There are a thousand reasons not to, here are 96, that will never be forgotten...
