KopTalk.com Forums Football Liverpool FC Forum MacKenzie confronted on his own doorstep

It's true mackenzie wasn't responsible for the events. That doesn't change his part which was a large one in the aftermath. The sun is a hugely important part in shaping British opinion, and the reason why mackenzie is more to blame than any other editor was that he knew what he was writing was incorrect, when it was presented to him as being doubtful he over ruled that information. The sun is only the mouthpiece of the thatcher right, and mackenzie wasn't there but this guy knew it was a cover up, he wrote libellous mistruths on dead people because of his ideology not to save himself or his own job (not that thats justifiable either) and as far as i know he still hasnt apologised for it. Or he did then he retracted it.

He will get more flak than an anonymous policeman or member of the FA, or a politician hiding in retirement but thats what he deserves..live by the sword die by the sword

I don't disagree with your opinion of mackenzie but he did not break the law libel is a civil action and very difficult to prove. Tabloids especially back then routinely made lurid headlines which we the public cheerfull;y paid for. But the FA and the SYP did break the law and focussing on mackenzie is shielding them. Thats the point I am making. THEY are the onces who caused the disaster and the loss of life.

We all know mackenzie wrote that headline. What I think now is of more interest is that thing that came up in last weeks report about the sheffield MP and the police and the connection with the Sun. That is not libel that is a criminal act and if mackenzie is proved to be involved as part of a deliberate cover up of evidence then that is a serious offence perverting the course of justice.

libel's not hard to prove in this case. The libel is clear, even if the press is granted flexibility in its headlines. The libel isn't in the headline in anycase its in the detail (which I know he didn't write but when he over ruled his own journalist he becomes responsible for the article). So I don't see how anyone could even hesitate to question that the article is libellous, knowing that he was relying on information leaked from the police before an inquest or any verification of facts 4 DAYS after the disaster?? I suppose the problem with libel is knowing who actually created the story, if other papers were running the story after then they also are guilty. The 'libel' isn't the issue, it's that mackenzie may well have known that it was a load of bullsh1t but fell into his hands so he didn't care.

As you say, the what went after is more important. There will have to a criminal investigation imo. It came from the top and no suprise that thatcher is on the way out that it comes out now when she is on way out. I am in agreement with you, in that Mackenzie is low down in the food chain, and shouldn't be the main target of anger. The fact remains that libellous statements about the dead, especially when they are repeated, and especially when the person writing or saying them knows since a long time that they are untrue are going to produce this vitriol. So he deserves it. I don't understand why people seem to get all defensive when they see someone coming up his drive. As I said before they get worse on the rogue traders programmes. .