Katie Hopkins - Toeing the McCann line.

Two things we know for sure about Kate and Gerry McCann:

1. They enjoy nothing more than people banging on about neglect, it is after all their alibi, and, whilst people stick on the topic of neglect, they're not discussing the more condemnatory evidence.

2. They love to play the victim. If ever we needed proof of that, we only have to look at the lies they told about Goncalo Amaral, or the dossier in 2014, that ultimately led to an innocent woman's death; a woman who, through no fault of her own was labelled a 'vile troll', and far, far worse.

So imagine the McCanns' glee when they get two for the price of one. A minor celebrity - she was in Big Brother, and is known for being a bigot; sometimes racist; sometimes crude; sometimes xenophobic; always loud-mouthed; always offensive; often vacuous, and widely regarded as someone who likes to stir up hate for the sake of a few quid, and one who believes Madeleine was neglected, and abducted.

I am of course, talking about Katie Hopkins. The 'I say it as it is' champion of the people.

One of Hopkins' early offerings regarding the McCann case, was shortly after the tragic death of Brenda Leyland. Up stepped our heroin with the following tweet:

Keyword: "Negligence"

February 2016; Hopkins writes an article in The Daily Mail about the McCanns, and her outrage at them leaving Madeleine alone. She even signed the article off with the line,

"Maddie wasn't lost because someone took her. She was lost because she was left to be found."

Click to read article

The rest of the MSM jumped on this story, labelling the article as an 'astonishing attack on Madeleine McCann's parents'.

This was perfect for Kate and Gerry. For almost 9 years, the McCanns had openly admitted to leaving their kids alone, they had also complained about abuse from 'perfect parents', and here was Hopkins giving them both these things. Confirming the McCanns' version of events, whilst whipping up a hate storm on twitter; many who were unaware of the more damning aspects of the case, were leaping to Hopkins' side, accusing the McCanns of neglect, and firing vicious verbal volleys into the ether.

Those who did have a better understanding of the case, questioned Hopkins, asking her if she was going to follow up her article with links to the PJ files, or discuss the many inconsistencies to the McCanns' version of events.

Hopkins, full of bravado, promised there would be more to come - and she was right.

June 9th 2016; Katie tells anybody who could be bothered to listen, via her podcast, that her previous article (the one about neglect), was one she had been previously stopped from writing by The Sun. Suddenly, people thought 'she's being silenced, she must be onto something, why would The Sun stop Katie writing about the case?'.

People waited with bated breath...and they waited...and they waited...

Then, in February this year, as she did with Brenda Leyland, Hopkins arrived back on the scene, riding the wave left by Goncalo Amaral's victory over Kate and Gerry in the Supreme Court.

Would we finally see her dig deeper or reveal more?

That would be an emphatic 'NO'.

We were given the leftovers from her last offering; the same food, only cold, and a little past its best. She even quoted the same line:

"You know it strikes me that in this instance, Maddie wasn't lost because someone took her. I believe Maddie was lost because she was left to be found."

Click here for LBC show.

Yet again, avoiding the main issues, whilst reinforcing the theory of an abductor taking Madeleine because she was left in the apartment to be found.

It was of course great timing...if you're Kate and Gerry. Goncalo Amaral's book had been ruled factual, and his theory of Madeleine's parents covering up her death, based upon his time on the investigation was allowed to be published.

What better time to discuss the more detailed areas of the case?

Not for Hopkins though, it was neglect leading to abduction all the way. Exactly what the McCanns said, but from someone posing as the enemy.

Next up, came a video with Jodie Marsh, and guess what, it came off the back of yet another big announcement regarding the case - quelle surprise!

It had just been announced, that Operation Grange was to be given an extra £85k to carry on the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance. The metaphorical ambulance, panting on the driveway of Jodie Marsh, the soles of rent-a-gob's running shoes still hot from the chase, and their owner in yet another position to fulfil her promise of speaking out. This was a private video, no restrictions from her editor. What did Hopkins deliver?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/katie-hopkins-brands-injustice-mccanns-10055899

More of the exact same nothingness. Neglect, leading to abduction.  Actually that's not strictly true, Hopkins did add something else this time, and I think it's the first time I've heard her be honest:

"I don't really mind what happened"

Finally the truth. Katie Hopkins doesn't give a what about that fateful night, as long as it serves her. She's a fake, someone out to make a name for herself by acting controversial, whilst at the same time, picking the splinters out of her backside.

I gave three examples of some of the biggest talking points regarding the case. Events that would, ordinarily have people discussing the hard facts, all of which Hopkins leapt on in a flash, and brought back around to the same tale of neglect, and abduction. She promised to give us more, she gave nothing, and now, she's at it again:

Only this time, she's using the name of a dead woman - Brenda Leyland, to get more attention. What's really sickening, is that  Brenda did discuss the real facts, both in her own name, and through her twitter account. She did it in a perfectly legal manner, as was ruled at the inquest into her tragic, and untimely death.

Coincidentally, an avid supporter of Kate and Gerry, who hounded and threatened Brenda days before her death; mocked her passing afterwards; and even had the brass neck to attend the inquest, seems rather pleased with Hopkins' input on the case...

...and well she might. Hopkins is towing the McCann line, she's feeding the public exactly what the McCanns want them to be fed.

"...Maddie was lost because she was left to be found."

There are many, many other aspects to this case:

The evidence of the EVRD dog, and CSI dog, Eddie and Keela:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lrrMoUr3OA

http://laidbareblog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/the-truth-of-dogs-mccann-case-and-more.html

The lies about a break in. Possibly one of the most fundamental points of the case. It was after all, because of this lie; passed onto the media, from Kate and Gerry, via their friends and family back in the UK, that a vast number of the population were conned into parting with their money:

http://laidbareblog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/more-mccann-lies-crock-of-locked-v.html

That money, many believed they were donating to help find Madeleine, was spent on legal fees, and gambled on failed and obsessive law suits. It paid the annual salary of Clarence Mitchell - a cabinet office media monitor, who left his role with the Labour party, to lie to the press on behalf of the McCanns, thus creating a paradoxical circle of events. 'Give us money, and we'll feed you more lies'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzikQRswVpw

These, and many more things happened. They're documented in the files, they're facts, so when Hopkins tell us she's going to reveal more, and she won't be silenced, why does she stick to the same mantra, neglect - abduction? The McCanns' version.

There is so much more to this case than the issue of neglect.

What next for the McCanns?

The European Court of Human Rights - ECHR:

Almost as soon as the news of Goncalo Amaral's second successful defence against the McCanns was spreading across the parallel universe that is the main stream media, mumblings, whispers and in the case of some newspapers, definitive statements were being made; "McCanns to appeal court ruling".

I was holding out for the headline, "Kate and Gerry McCann to throw yet more donated money away in obsessive pursuit of one man".

Or...

"McCanns set to gamble yet more cash, many believe is being used to search for Madeleine"

Of course those headlines will never make the front pages, despite (plans of appealing aside), being totally true. 

Kate and Gerry McCann have spent many years and a massive amount of public donations in pursuing Goncalo Amaral. 

“He deserves to be miserable and feel fear”, is one of Kate's quotes about Snr. Amaral.

All those years, all that cash, and now, if the rumours are correct, Kate and Gerry are considering appealing yet again. This time to the last chance saloon; The European Court of Human Rights. 

The press, as you'd expect, lay out the news like it's a foregone conclusion; that the McCanns will simply get on the blower to Strasbourg, and coupling their usual arrogance, with a somewhat swaggering self entitlement complex, will be granted an appeal just like that. 

It isn't that easy. 

Personally, I doubt very much if the McCanns will go down the ECHR route. I'm more of the opinion that the cries of 'we'll appeal', are hollow, and that the McCann media machine is merely trying to fool whoever still believes their tripe, into believing the McCanns have been dealt a severe injustice (they haven't), and will seek to rectify it asap. 

That being said, it's just my opinion, so let's look at the ECHR, and whether the McCanns could, should they apply, be granted the right to appeal. 

- The first step for anyone seeking to apply to the ECHR, is to download an application form, and fill every section out, meticulously, and in full.

- If any parts of the form are incomplete, illegible, or incorrect, then the court could well end the claim right there. (These ladies and gents do not fuck about).

- Once the form is completed, it must be sent to the ECHR in Strasbourg. 

- Upon arrival at Strasbourg, the application form will be sent to the appropriate legal division. In this case, it would be a division that included Portuguese speakers, who also have expertise in Portuguese litigation.

- The file will then be given a number, and examined by a lawyer.

- The court may then contact the applicant, and ask for further information. If this isn't sent immediately, the court can, and will, terminate the application. 

- Other than the court requesting information, and the applicant sending it, the latter must NOT contact the court. (Can you imagine Gerry being able to adhere to that rule?)

- The court receives over 50,000 applicants a year, of those only a staggeringly low 5% actually reach the judgement stage. You feeling lucky Kate and Gerry?

- "If your application is clearly inadmissible because it does not meet all the required admissibility criteria, it will be dealt with by a single judge. The inadmissibility decision given by that judge is final. You will be informed by letter, but you will not receive a copy of the decision. It is not possible to challenge the inadmissibility decision or request any further information about it. The Court will close the case and the file will be destroyed at a later date"

- In all cases, once the ECHR decides, at any stage, that an application is inadmissible, or it is rejected, then that's it; game over; you had your chance; you blew it. 

Now, let's get down to some juicier bits. 

One of the questions that we've seen crop up a few times, is this:

If the McCanns begin the appeal process, will Goncalo Amaral's assets be frozen once more, and will the costs Kate and Gerry were ordered to pay, be suspended pending the outcome of the ECHR?

The wonderful news, if you're sat on the Amaral side of the fence, is that until a final verdict is reached by the ECHR, they don't have the power to overturn, suspend, or alter any decision made by the Portuguese, as confirmed by the ECHR below:

"If I apply to the Court, does it mean I do not have to
comply with the final judgement given by the domestic
courts?

No, applying to the Court has no suspensive effect. You must
comply with the final decisions of the national courts even if you
lodge an application with the Strasbourg Court."

So no get out there. If Kate and Gerry were hoping to delay payment (whilst they squirrelled away more of the donations given to them to find their daughter), by slapping in an application to the ECHR, they'd better have a rethink; it won't work. 

The current backlog of cases, means that any application could take up to a year, and more, to reach the appeal stage. Plenty of time for the McCanns to pay up, or find themselves arrested. 

Another question that is included in the ECHR many information sheets, is this one:

"What is the European Court of Human Rights
not able to do for me?

The Court does not act as a court of appeal in relation to national
courts (the Supreme Court in Lisbon being one of these); it does not rehear cases, it cannot quash, vary or revise
their decisions.

The Court will not intercede directly on your behalf with the authority you are complaining about. In exceptional circumstances the Court may, however, grant interim measures.

As a matter of practice it only does so where there is a serious risk of physical harm to the applicant.

The Court will not help you find or pay a lawyer to draw up your application.

The Court cannot give you any information on legal provisions in force in the State against which your complaints are directed."

More on the how applications to the European Court of Human Rights, can be read on the following links:

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Your_Application_ENG.pdf

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Questions_Answers_ENG.pdf

So, if the McCanns are indeed having utopian ideas of starting further desperate, and pitiful attempts to destroy Snr. Amaral, I would suggest that fantasy land is where they will be born and reality be there resting place. 

My honest opinion (for what it's worth), of this entire legal battle and what should happen next is as follows. 

1. Kate and Gerry need to suck this loss up. 

2. They need to apologise, publicly, to those who donated cash they believed would be used solely for the search for Madeleine. That cash has been spent on corrupt private detectives, who (as proven in previous blogs) also channelled their efforts into destroying Snr. Amaral, instead of looking for Madeleine; it has been spent on buying favourable headlines; lawyers; PR spokesman - that's Clarence Mitchell's official title, to the rest of us, he's just a child abuse apologist, who took hundreds of thousands of pounds, in exchange for a multitude of lies, fake stories, and smears, designed to do protect his employers. 

3. They need to hand over the cash they owe Goncalo Amaral, and sharp, so that the £52,900, or the change from his defence, raised by those who wished to help Snr. Amaral, can as promised, be donated to children's charities. I would then hope that the PJGA show complete transparency, and inform us all of exactly how the money was divided up, and to which charities it went to. 

I've seen a lot of comments from people agreeing to a post, that Snr. Amaral should use that money to counter sue the McCanns. 

To those people I would say this:

Goncalo Amaral will have plenty of his own money to take that course of action should he wish to. The £52,900 was raised for him to defend himself, with the remainder to go to children's charities. If I'm honest, I find the comments that he should keep going until the McCanns lose their house etc. quite sickening. It's a baying mob mentality, and if that's what you're into, we're way off being on the same page. Kate and Gerry have two other children, do you really want to see them lose their family home, as well as their sister?

That's before I've even got on to how much good that sum will do for children's charities. I wonder, are the same people who are suggesting Snr. Amaral use that money, even be it temporarily, happy that it not be given to children who desperately need it immediately? 

Even if it were to feed, educate, keep warm, keep safe, just one child (it would help many. many more), would the lynch mobbers out there prefer it be used to pursue the McCanns?

"Ah never mind the kids Goncalo, they can wait; instead, we'd like you to spend all the cash on a big stick, and beat the McCanns with it...huh their other two kids? Nahhh, be reet, here, take the stick"

If you do, and if you got your way, would you still feel comfortable accusing the McCanns of neglecting 3 children, whilst your wish would neglect many more?

Would you feel ok about a fund set up for one reason, suddenly being used to pursue Kate and Gerry through the courts, even though that's the very thing you complain about the McCanns doing? 

"but they deserve it, but they made his life hell, but, but, but..."

...but nothing, you're blinkered, hypocritical, and totally lacking any perspective. 

Finally, it has to be said, now the dust has settled; that all of this; the lies; the legal battles; the obscene amount of money wasted, could have all been avoided. If the McCanns had looked after their kids properly, then the chances are Madeleine would still be here. If they hadn't gone on to lie through their teeth, the investigation could have run it's proper course - without hindrance. 

Madeleine McCann deserved so much better. 

She was born an ordinary girl, with her whole life ahead of her.

She became a treasure trove for those who were responsible for her death, and those who supported their lies.

#DontBuyTheSun

The Sun newspaper. How this outrageous rag still remains in circulation, is something of a mystery. Boasting a long history of sickening lies, blackmail, smear campaigns, and now further allegations of phone hacking, The Sun is currently facing a court battle, that could prove to be the beginning of the end.

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

Hillsborough disaster: deadly mistakes and lies that lasted decades

 

Read more

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 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: 

"...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.

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.

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...

Name	Age	Sex
SOURCE: HILLSBOROUGH PANEL
Jon-Paul Gilhooley	10	M
Philip Hammond	14	M
Thomas Anthony Howard	14	M
Paul Brian Murray	14	M
Lee Nicol	14	M
Adam Edward Spearritt	14	M
Peter Andrew Harrison	15	M
Victoria Jane Hicks	15	F
Philip John Steele	15	M
Kevin Tyrrell	15	M
Kevin Daniel Williams	15	M
Kester Roger Marcus Ball	16	M
Nicholas Michael Hewitt	16	M
Martin Kevin Traynor	16	M
Simon Bell	17	M
Carl Darren Hewitt	17	M
Keith McGrath	17	M
Stephen Francis O'Neill	17	M
Steven Joseph Robinson	17	M
Henry Charles Rogers	17	M
Stuart Paul William Thompson	17	M
Graham John Wright	17	M
James Gary Aspinall	18	M
Carl Brown	18	M
Paul Clark	18	M
Christopher Barry Devonside	18	M
Gary Philip Jones	18	M
Carl David Lewis	18	M
John McBrien	18	M
Jonathon Owens	18	M
Colin Mark Ashcroft	19	M
Paul William Carlile	19	M
Gary Christopher Church	19	M
James Philip Delaney	19	M
Sarah Louise Hicks	19	F
David William Mather	19	M
Colin Wafer	19	M
Ian David Whelan	19	M
Stephen Paul Copoc	20	M
Ian Thomas Glover	20	M
Gordon Rodney Horn	20	M
Paul David Brady	21	M
Thomas Steven Fox	21	M
Marian Hazel McCabe	21	F
Joseph Daniel McCarthy	21	M
Peter McDonnell	21	M
Carl William Rimmer	21	M
Peter Francis Tootle	21	M
David John Benson	22	M
David William Birtle	22	M
Tony Bland	22	M
Gary Collins	22	M
Tracey Elizabeth Cox	23	F
William Roy Pemberton	23	M
Colin Andrew Hugh William Sefton	23	M
David Leonard Thomas	23	M
Peter Andrew Burkett	24	M
Derrick George Godwin	24	M
Graham John Roberts	24	M
David Steven Brown	25	M
Richard Jones	25	M
Barry Sidney Bennett	26	M
Andrew Mark Brookes	26	M
Paul Anthony Hewitson	26	M
Paula Ann Smith	26	F
Christopher James Traynor	26	M
Barry Glover	27	M
Gary Harrison	27	M
Christine Anne Jones	27	F
Nicholas Peter Joynes	27	M
Francis Joseph McAllister	27	M
Alan McGlone	28	M
Joseph Clark	29	M
Christopher Edwards	29	M
James Robert Hennessy	29	M
Alan Johnston	29	M
Anthony Peter Kelly	29	M
Martin Kenneth Wild	29	M
Peter Reuben Thompson	30	M
Stephen Francis Harrison	31	M
Eric Hankin	33	M
Vincent Michael Fitzsimmons	34	M
Roy Harry Hamilton	34	M
Patrick John Thompson	35	M
Michael David Kelly	38	M
Brian Christopher Mathews	38	M
David George Rimmer	38	M
Inger Shah	38	F
David Hawley	39	M
Thomas Howard	39	M
Arthur Horrocks	41	M
Eric George Hughes	42	M
Henry Thomas Burke	47	M
Raymond Thomas Chapman	50	M
John Alfred Anderson	62	M
Gerard Bernard Patrick Baron	67	M