Thatchers slimey trail in the cover up has been protected by the DPA but this snippet of her ordering the wording of the governments response to the Taylor report to be police friendly slipped through the net. But in a handwritten note, Mrs Thatcher made it clear that she did not want to give the government's full backing to Lord Taylor's criticisms, only to the way in which he had conducted his inquiry and made recommendations for action. She wrote: "What do we mean by 'welcoming the broad thrust of the report'? The broad thrust is devastating criticism of the police. Is that for us to welcome? Surely we welcome the thoroughness of the report and its recommendations - M.T." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19574492
I'm no Tory, but I feel sick that a shyster who towed the Establishment line himself is quick to score a party political point. There's a lot of things the Tories did that were despicable in the 80's Jack, but becoming their spiritual and moral successors a decade later when you had the chance to be different didn't make anything better. If you want to be useful instead of opportunistic Jack, explain why you, the first Labour Home Secretary after Hillsborough, never thought it necassary to ask what progress the SYP criminal investigation into the 'stolen' cctv tapes from the contol room was going. Gobsh!te.
The Labour opposition of Kinnock were no slouches in trying be seen as the brave bobbies bestest friends either, especially when they routinely breaking the law in their surveillance and stop and search tactics during the miners' strike. As said, I have been a labour member and supporter all my life, but they were not our friends over Hillsborough. Andy Burnham and a few local Labour MP's apart, they did f00k all when they had the chance.
The Sun apology means little to me (though I was surprised). What WILL impress me, and would hopefully impress Leveson and all this guff about a free press, is if they use their investigative journalists and powers to doorstep, harrass and pester Dukenfield, Patnik, Popper et al until they get one of them to break and admit the conspiracy, in they same way they persecuted the relatives and friends of the 96.
New Labour lost the respect of the working class with their move to the right, around the time of the disaster Kinnock was locked in a battle to expel the Liverpool militant Labour Party from the party and never really had a good word to say about the City, Thatchers government also had a battle with Liverpool Militant Labour about the payment of the poll tax etc. Basically Liverpool was seen as a political pariah by Westminster. The Yorkshire miners got no support from 'New Labour' when they got the **** kicked out of them by the infamous​ South Yorkshire Police.
On this issue, I have questions as to where my MP has been through-out all this. We have Walton, Garston and even Leigh all adding their weight, what did Luciana Berger of Wavertree ever do? Apart from shagging Tony Blairs son, she has done fook all in politics.
Just to put that bit in context: "Among the new documents released on Wednesday was a memo from a senior civil servant to Baroness Thatcher about the interim report into the tragedy by Lord Justice Taylor. She was told the August 1989 report had found that the chief superintendent in charge at Hillsborough had "behaved in an indecisive fashion" and senior officers had infuriated the judge by seeking to "duck all responsibility when giving evidence" to his inquiry. The memo made it clear that Mr Hurd thought South Yorkshire Chief Constable Peter Wright would have to resign, adding: "The enormity of the disaster, and the extent to which the inquiry blames the police, demand this." And it added: "The defensive, and at times close to deceitful, behaviour by the senior officers in South Yorkshire sounds depressingly familiar. Too many senior policemen seem to lack the capacity or character to perceive and admit faults in their organisation." The report, the memo added, would "sap confidence in the police force" and could encourage aggressive behaviour by fans who would feel "vindicated" by its conclusions. But in a handwritten note, Mrs Thatcher made it clear that she did not want to give the government's full backing to Lord Taylor's criticisms, only to the way in which he had conducted his inquiry and made recommendations for action. She wrote: "What do we mean by 'welcoming the broad thrust of the report'? The broad thrust is devastating criticism of the police. Is that for us to welcome? Surely we welcome the thoroughness of the report and its recommendations - M.T.""
I don't think that the media has any obligation to be neutral. I don't buy Tory papers, but I defend their right to use the facts to push their agenda, provided that they are facts. For instance, right wing papers criticised the child benefit cuts to high earners as an attack on hard working, aspirational families, while those further to the left accepted it as a necessary part of ensuring that those with broader shoulders took up their fair share of the cuts. But I completely agree with your general message. There's an absolute world of difference between an organisation believing the wrong people, or using the facts to support their views, and The Sun portraying what they printed as fact, when even at the time parts of it were clearly not (we now know for certain that ALL of it was rubbish).
She's a nasty piece of work. I met her once and I'll be eternally grateful if I never have to meet her again . A less "Labour" minded person I can't imagine.
She must be if she's had no involvement in getting the truth revealed. I wish Paxman had been on Newsnight last night rather than Kirsty Wark
Labour were no better than the tories anyway. Blair was a decent bloke, but he would be happy to pull down his pants and let himself be sucked off if it meant that his party got a few quid.
