[alan29]

He has successfully proved what we all suspected - that he is a total c*nt.

[barneyb]

Indeed...but , as another poster pointed out - look what's happened with Piers Morgan....he'll just lie low for a while then re-appear in the media when he thinks people will have forgotten what a complete slimeball he is

[Super_Furry]

I won't give my honest opinion of McKenzie on here, as it will just get me banned for bad language again, but there are the email addresses and contact details of many media big-wigs available online.

A quick note to them to explain why you don't think that McKenzie should be employed by them in the future can't do any harm.

New BBC Director General George Entwistle, for example (george.entwistle@bbc.co.uk).

I sent him this on Wednesday:

Subject: Kelvin McKenzie:

"Dear Mr Entwistle,

Please refrain from using Mr McKenzie on any of your programs in the future.

The man is reprehensible, has a history of making false apologies (and then retracting them), and has now admitted that he lacks even the most basic of journalistic integrity by refusing to check his sources before printing lies.

For a publicly funded corporation such as the BBC to pay this man to appear on any show over the past few years has always been a decision that I've found difficult to comprehend, but surely you must agree that it has become impossible to employ him again in any capacity.

I hope that you used your considerable authority to make a statement to that effect and dissuade other organisations from using him in the future too.

Many thanks for reading this."

[Big Boy Barry]

You'll get the standard reply of "thankyou for your e-mail, we appreciate all feedback, we hire commentators in order to get a perspective from all sides of an issue, even though some commentators can be controversial as we feel that healthy debate blah blah blah....etc....."

[vidalia]

Oh I'm sure Mr McKenzie will appear on the Alan Titchmarsh show at some point in the future, say some sort of anti-welfare sound bite and get a big round of applause.

I'm sure that's not how he saw his future when editor of the Sun though.

[Big Boy Barry]

With all the attention on McKenzie, there is one more person who seems to be hiding under his rock

Rupert Murdoch

He approved the smears of the Hillsborough dead and survivors. The buck stops with him

[Cyril_Sneer]

Originally Posted by Super_Furry

I won't give my honest opinion of McKenzie on here, as it will just get me banned for bad language again, but there are the email addresses and contact details of many media big-wigs available online.

A quick note to them to explain why you don't think that McKenzie should be employed by them in the future can't do any harm.

New BBC Director General George Entwistle, for example (george.entwistle@bbc.co.uk).

I sent him this on Wednesday:

Subject: Kelvin McKenzie:

"Dear Mr Entwistle,

Please refrain from using Mr McKenzie on any of your programs in the future.

The man is reprehensible, has a history of making false apologies (and then retracting them), and has now admitted that he lacks even the most basic of journalistic integrity by refusing to check his sources before printing lies.

For a publicly funded corporation such as the BBC to pay this man to appear on any show over the past few years has always been a decision that I've found difficult to comprehend, but surely you must agree that it has become impossible to employ him again in any capacity.

I hope that you used your considerable authority to make a statement to that effect and dissuade other organisations from using him in the future too.

Many thanks for reading this."

What you arent getting is that they love people who are controversial and get into these kind of scrapes, because they pull in viewers. Remember how question time made a big deal of using Nick Griffiths from BNP.

[fruitloop27]

Originally Posted by John_Traynor

Mckenzie's headline cannot be blamed on anyone else. Any other editor receiving such details would have had severe doubts about the integrity of the information. McKenzie chose the headline and the story because it was sensationalist and because it suited his newspaper's political stance.

At no point during his sewer-dwelling career has he cared an iota for truth, integrity or morality. He has never had a moral compass, he is an extreme sociopath.

Summed up what I think far more concisely than I could've put it.

[mevilhoney]

Originally Posted by fruitloop27

Summed up what I think far more concisely than I could've put it.

I don`t follow his tv career,but he did a strange programme about Jack The Ripper for Channel 5,it looked like an investigation but of course ended up being about...Kelvin Mackenzie. Apparently Jack the Ripper started killing around about the time a London newspaper found it got way more readers with lurid stories of the killings,even imaginary drawings of the slayings,and Mackenzie, without irony, attributed the start of tabloid newspapers to the rampage of Jack the Ripper. He seemed to admire one journalist who iirc invented letters from Jack the Ripper and printed them in the paper! He actually admired the journalist who came up with the,in his word iirc, `marvellous` name `Jack the Ripper`. I think that says a hell of a lot about the man.

[katmobile]

Originally Posted by baldbilluk

I was watching This Morning today and Kelvin McKenzie came up due to his ignorance and shoddy newpaper headlines about Hillsborough, Pippy Schof said that he would not welcome his unless they spoke about this but Mr McKenzie is not available for comment, jut felt that he was a weasle for not talking about Hillsbourough to Scoffie (I felt that Scof would have given him a "fair voice" as McKenzie does the newspaper reports) as he was extremely both loud and vulgar at demonising Hillsborough not just 23 years ago but even till today, just thought what any one thought about this?

What I think about that man (I'm not even going to glorify with the word gentleman used euthemistically) is sadly not going to get through the language filter here - IMO he's only said sorry but there's no way he can avoid doing it anymore. Yes the Sun were fed the story but no one else had the insensitivity to run it - Merseyside will probably rightly ever forgive them for it.

[wuffles]

Hopefully, the families will now sue him for libel.

[Cyril_Sneer]

Originally Posted by wuffles

Hopefully, the families will now sue him for libel.

Whether they do or don't, news international would foot the bill.

KM is well connected and protected, maybe he will retire but if he wants to find a way back into the public eye i'm sure he will be offered it regardless of the public opinion, just like Morgan was.

[Cantona07]

Kelvin McKenzie is/was a ****, but he isn't the first editor to print utter lies as subsequent editors have proved, as has the Leveson inquiry. The difference it that this lie inexplicably took 23 years to be revealed.

Had everything else worked as it should he would have been forced to print a retraction a matter of days later as is the norm and has happened a million times since.

[zx50]

Originally Posted by Cantona07

Kelvin McKenzie is/was a ****, but he isn't the first editor to print utter lies as subsequent editors have proved, as has the Leveson inquiry. The difference it that this lie inexplicably took 23 years to be revealed.

Had everything else worked as it should he would have been forced to print a retraction a matter of days later as is the norm and has happened a million times since.

I think apologies have only been made because actual proof has been provided that shows that The Sun was wrong in printing what it did back then. Basically, they had no choice and had to apologise. If this evidence hadn't have been obtained, they'd have carried on keeping quiet.

[Cantona07]

Originally Posted by zx50

I think apologies have only been made because actual proof has been provided that shows that The Sun was wrong in printing what it did back then. Basically, they had no choice and had to apologise. If this evidence hadn't have been obtained, they'd have carried on keeping quiet.

Of course, but under normal circumstances the apology would have come 2 or 3 days later rather than 23 years.

[Cyril_Sneer]

Originally Posted by zx50

I think apologies have only been made because actual proof has been provided that shows that The Sun was wrong in printing what it did back then. Basically, they had no choice and had to apologise. If this evidence hadn't have been obtained, they'd have carried on keeping quiet.

All the blame can't be on The Sun though, they were led on. There was a police conspiracy going on, reports edited the lot.

The police are getting off very lightly here. Of course the Sun should have taken the decision not to print even out of respect for the dead but who knows who was really leaning on them to go with it.

[Cantona07]

Originally Posted by Cyril_Sneer

All the blame can't be on The Sun though, they were led on. There was a police conspiracy going on, reports edited the lot.

The police are getting off very lightly here. Of course the Sun should have taken the decision not to print even out of respect for the dead but who knows who was really leaning on them to go with it.

The Sun were under tremendous pressure to go the extra yard for the story/headline at the time. Hence why they probably ran with the story in the first place.

It doesn't make it good or right - definitely not.

However they probably did that 100 times and were only called out once. This was an example on a grand scale.

What happened subsequently is a disgrace however.

[quisling]

Originally Posted by Cyril_Sneer

All the blame can't be on The Sun though, they were led on. There was a police conspiracy going on, reports edited the lot.

The police are getting off very lightly here. Of course the Sun should have taken the decision not to print even out of respect for the dead but who knows who was really leaning on them to go with it.

ALL the other papers were given the same information by the same agency and most of them printed the story with headlines such as 'Police Accuse Fans Of..." or "Police Claim..."

ONLY McKenzie/Murdoch's rag printed the accusations as "The Truth".

Between them, the poor journalistic practice, bigotry and arrogance of Murdoch and McKenzie has compounded the grief of 96 families for 23 years when, had they had an ounce of decency they'd have looked into the matter more closely over the years and campaigned for the real truth to be uncovered - as did Andy Burnham MP and many others.

Who knows how many other individuals unconnected with Hillsborough have suffered as a result of the power and arrogance of these two men?

The best thing we can hope is that editors and broadcasters now realise what many people have known for 23 years and no longer give McKenzie the opportunity to spout his filthy, divisive, grotesque opinions.


.

[Cyril_Sneer]

Originally Posted by Cantona07

The Sun were under tremendous pressure to go the extra yard for the story/headline at the time. Hence why they probably ran with the story in the first place.

It doesn't make it good or right - definitely not.

However they probably did that 100 times and were only called out once. This was an example on a grand scale.

What happened subsequently is a disgrace however.

Agree 100%

[Tulip19]

Originally Posted by baldbilluk

I was watching This Morning today and Kelvin McKenzie came up due to his ignorance and shoddy newpaper headlines about Hillsborough, Pippy Schof said that he would not welcome his unless they spoke about this but Mr McKenzie is not available for comment, jut felt that he was a weasle for not talking about Hillsbourough to Scoffie (I felt that Scof would have given him a "fair voice" as McKenzie does the newspaper reports) as he was extremely both loud and vulgar at demonising Hillsborough not just 23 years ago but even till today, just thought what any one thought about this?

I don't mind him discussing the papers on This Morning but would prefer not to see him on question Time and 5 Live taking part in debates.

As for a 'fair hearing' - I don't see the point, as he was/is so clearly in the wrong.

His token apology is noted.

[Tulip19]

Originally Posted by Cyril_Sneer

All the blame can't be on The Sun though, they were led on. There was a police conspiracy going on, reports edited the lot.

The police are getting off very lightly here. Of course the Sun should have taken the decision not to print even out of respect for the dead but who knows who was really leaning on them to go with it.

Yes, you can definitely blame them. All papers were presumably fed the same information.

Kelvin Mackenzie was the only one vindictive enough to publish - and publish under an exceedingly inflammatory headline. 'The Truth'? Come on.

There were doubts in the newsroom at the time but he did it anyway. So the story goes.

[milliejo]

You can't blame The Sun for reaction like The Sun, lies on the front page and totally separated from the facts. It was how it operated then and how it operates now. And they also take no responsilibilty for who they hurt and the consequences of their publications. McKenzie is the sycophant of the Tory headquaters....

[Cyril_Sneer]

Originally Posted by Tulip19

Yes, you can definitely blame them. All papers were presumably fed the same information.

Kelvin Mackenzie was the only one vindictive enough to publish - and publish under an exceedingly inflammatory headline. 'The Truth'? Come on.

There were doubts in the newsroom at the time but he did it anyway. So the story goes.

I didnt say you can't blame them, i said you can't blame just them. Obviously the Sun did something in extrememly bad taste but also you need to look at who was feeding them the information - at the end of the day the outrage should be directed at the police more so than the Sun. Without the police and others conspiring to put the story the Sun took out there then it would never have even existed in print.

[Becky Sharpe]

Originally Posted by Cyril_Sneer

The people behind the paper as a whole are to blame, not just one individual -if anything Kelvins taking the rap for Murdoch.

Originally Posted by Big Boy Barry

With all the attention on McKenzie, there is one more person who seems to be hiding under his rock

Rupert Murdoch

He approved the smears of the Hillsborough dead and survivors. The buck stops with him

These ↑.. imho, Rupert Murdoch was an enthusiastic shoveller of shite on Maggie's farm. > http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/po...wanted-1324983 KMac was his 'glamorous' assistant.

[Cyril_Sneer]

Originally Posted by Becky Sharpe

These ↑.. imho, Rupert Murdoch was an enthusiastic shoveller of shite on Maggie's farm. > http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/po...wanted-1324983 KMac was his 'glamorous' assistant.

IMO, anything to do with this, would have been directed from the government down - and that would include the actions of police and the media. I think there's a lot more to it than people know even after the report. This was major and they would have been all over it the second it happened.

The Sun were stupid to have printed what they did, but no doubt in my mind being the biggest paper there would have been people leaning on them for above to play it like they did - and they would have checked above how to play it too.