The paper that cannot be mentioned

[reddragon]

thought you were going to do some DIY

it's pissing down outside

[ronan]

Well things are now being discussed sensibly, and I'm glad to see Fredo back.

There is IMO still a huge level of hyprocisy surrounding this subject and to me, watching Sky TV and reading The Times is just adding profits to the organisation that funds the *** in the first place. A sacrifice is just that, but very easy to boycott one paper than to boycott everything else that goes with it.

OK maybe boycotting Sky is a bit extreme, but The Times, NOTW and The *** are all published by News International, for me they are all sister papers and their combined profits ensure each others existence. A boycott of all 3 would be far more damaging to The *** without a great deal more effort on everyone's behalf.

there is no hypocrisy. all the family's of the 96 have asked for is a boycott of the sun newspaper.nothing else,no more.thats it.

[Kaip]

it's pissing down outside

If you can pop down to Ebbw I've got plenty of indoors work for you

[reddragon]

If you can pop down to Ebbw I've got plenty of indoors work for you

why do think it's called DO IT YOURSELF ??

[Helios Creed]

I've banned myself.

Has he gone again?

[lfc_michael]

there is no hypocrisy. all the family's of the 96 have asked for is a boycott of the sun newspaper.nothing else,no more.thats it.

In one. I said that last night in my response to his original post.

In any case, that newspaper is, sadly, the best-selling in the English-speaking world. Subscribing to Sky and buying The Times in no way subsidises it. I don't see it as a Murdoch issue. Where would you stop? He owns Fox, too. That's a lot of films you wouldn't be seeing at the cinema.

[Revo]

just when we thought it was all over look who arrives I would like to say this is the end of this topic for me but we know it wont ever be the end until 96 of our brothers and sisters get the justice they deserve and the great people of merseyside are unconditionally vindicated.
Having spoken to Fredo yesterday on MSN, he was again informed about my feelings and that i would not take back what i called him. If Red AL or Kaip, a couple of my mates made that statement then they would of received the same attention. Fredo is not as naive as some of you are trying to make out. He told me yesterday that he is aware of the sensitivity and he is entitled to his opinion. we were also on msn with a couple of other guys, whom were telling him to apologize and move on. I dont see why he should have to apologize for something that he believes in. In saying that, when somebody as "incomparable" (not my word, NY got the pm ) comes along and calls you on the subject, if your not going to apologize, then as Kaip says "you cant throw your toys out of the pram" and leave everyone else hanging. I make no apology's for any language that i use, if you need to look down your nose at me, i am not going to change nor is it my intention to try to make you like me, i am what i am without any pretensions and i will be ****ed if i am going to apologize for that. In closing, i have also told Fredo that if he left, that the site would be losing someone who actually contributes, funny thing, he said, can we still be friends? i told him that i don't stop being friends because of football arguments and thats not what real friends do.

[Dhav]

In one. I said that last night in my response to his original post.

In any case, that newspaper is, sadly, the best-selling in the English-speaking world. Subscribing to Sky and buying The Times in no way subsidises it. I don't see it as a Murdoch issue. Where would you stop? He owns Fox, too. That's a lot of films you wouldn't be seeing at the cinema.

This is true, but is Murdoch not the only remaining link to the rag from the Hillborough period? Everyone else (McKenzie, journalists etc) has moved on so by boycotting the rag the only people from that time who we are punishing is the owners. Looking at it that way it makes sense to extend the boycott to all Murdoch-owned enterprises.

On the other hand, if you consider that joke of an apology from a couple of years ago, that provides a reason enough to boycott the rag and punish the current people running it.

[James]

I don't get on the forums a lot due to the travelling I do, but when I see us behaving like this I would normally get pretty downhearted.

Three things that I think have come out of this:

1. The mods have been very mature and haven't jumped in heavy handed - thanks for that, it's very refreshing to see compared to some forums.

2. The level of feeling around Hillsborough is still extremely high and people who are either new to the club or live OOT (like myself) have to be very careful about the impact on others of what they say, regardless of what they meant.

3. There is actually hope for this circus This is my home since I have seen the light and left KT and I was getting pretty annoyed that we seemed to be arguing a lot these days. However the way this thread has run and the way we are sorting out our differences without resorting too much to mindless abuse is very encouraging.

If we can keep this up then the future might indeed be bright for est1892, just when I was beginning to think we were on a downhill slope.

[Deadlogic]

Anyone who is unsure of ANYTHING on this subject, take 20 minutes out of your day and read something that could help you understand the club you support.:

http://www.contrast.org/hillsborough/hfsg.shtm

http://www.contrast.org/hillsborough/whoweare.shtm (there is a difference between the two...)

For those who question the boycott (or what exactly we should be boycotting...), jump straight in at this page:

http://www.contrast.org/hillsborough/boycott.shtm

Read it.

Understand it.

Then, practice it.

[ronanm]

We're all adults here. No one on here is condoning what was or is written in that rag. The fact that some on here want to jump straight to execution is a little childish. Give someone the chance to qualify what they say before ramming their (sometimes blinkered) interpretation down the speaker's throat.

[James]

Anyone who is unsure of ANYTHING on this subject, take 20 minutes out of your day and read something that could help you understand the club you support.:

http://www.contrast.org/hillsborough/hfsg.shtm

http://www.contrast.org/hillsborough/whoweare.shtm (there is a difference between the two...)

For those who question the boycott (or what exactly we should be boycotting...), jump straight in at this page:

http://www.contrast.org/hillsborough/boycott.shtm

Read it.

Understand it.

Then, practice it.

You have to be careful here m8, you are telling people to read it and practice it, and 99.9% of Liverpool fans will.

We need to remember though that people have a choice, and because you are so passionate about it you are coming across as if they don't.

Let them make up their own mind, I would be surprised if anyone could read that and not boycott that rag - but they ultimately do have a choice.

[REDSCOUSER]

Fat Tony, good on ya for saying sorry, it takes a man to do this.
I don't think anyone from outside Liverpool will understand how Liverpudlians feel after Hillsborough & towards that rag. It explains why some people on this thread from outside Liverpool try to make excuses or find reasons on why fredo said what he said or why the *** said what it said.
I was still in the Wirral area in 89 but after that I left Britain all together and footy people in Canada that I converse/play(Brits & Canadians) with do not understand the reaction to the tragedy and why Liverpool feels like that.

[GordonGecko]

I read a book on the subject. A narrative account of the day called; "The Day of the Hillsborough Disaster"

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Day-Hillsbor...2696885&sr=8-1

It isn't a comfortable read....how can it be? But it is a truely eye opening & heart wrenching account of what happened & I recommend it to anyone who wants to understand more about such an important topic.

An excellent book

[lfc_michael]

This is true, but is Murdoch not the only remaining link to the rag from the Hillborough period? Everyone else (McKenzie, journalists etc) has moved on so by boycotting the rag the only people from that time who we are punishing is the owners. Looking at it that way it makes sense to extend the boycott to all Murdoch-owned enterprises.

On the other hand, if you consider that joke of an apology from a couple of years ago, that provides a reason enough to boycott the rag and punish the current people running it.

Yes and no. As you rightly point out, their 'apology' was anything but unreserved and sincere. Yes, journalists have departed from the paper, but the guiding principles (if I can use that term) remain the same. It's still a piece of trash that puts sensationalism and sales way above dignity and the facts. It hasn't learned, it hasn't changed, it hasn't moved on; nor should we.

I recognise that people have a choice over whether they read that or any other newspaper. It's their right to exercise that in a free country. However, that doesn't mean that it should appear on a Liverpool FC forum to be seen by others.

For what it's worth, I think the majority of people here have given their points sensibly on the matter. It's always bound to arouse strong feelings and everyone should be aware that it's far more sensitive an issue than debating whether we should sign Eto'o or Torres.