Retrocop - in reference to the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire's suspension - //Why has this man got to be the scapegoat and fall on his sword.// It is nothing to do with being a 'scapegoat' - it is to do with being head of an organisation which is revealed to have wilfully obstructed the inquest in its investigations, and continued the entire tragic...
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
//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?
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.
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.