Tag Archives: narcissism

America deserved 9/11 said ‘Reverend’ who laughed at it all on TV

NATIONALISTS AND extremists alike are well known for their moralising and pontificating judgemental style. Witness the manufactured outrage of Wings Over Scotland’s faux ‘reverend’, Stuart Campbell, regarding tasteless comments Tweeted by a Tory councillor recently. Stones and glasshouses, pots and kettles come to mind. But what about laughing at 9/11 on TV? AhDinnaeKen provides some much needed context:

"Mawkish, maudlin c**ts" the lot of them said the forensically analytical fraudulent 'reverend'.

“Mawkish, maudlin c**ts” the lot of them said the forensic analytical faux ‘reverend’ in an outburst of 9/11 context, recently.

By Longshanker aka @Ergasiophobe – context correspondent

A REVEREND who “laughed” at 9/11 on TV, has attacked the people who observed a Europe wide three minute silence to honour the Twin Tower victims, as “mawkish, maudlin cunts”.

Reverend Stuart Campbell, a hate preaching Scottish Nationalist from England, claimed America got what it deserved from the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers in New York.

Comparing terrorist murderers, Al-Qaeda, to a dog, the Reverend said: If you kick a dog long enough, eventually it’s going to turn round and bite you, and it’s nobody’s fault but your own.”

And, in further reinforcement of this twisted belief, he also said: There was a widespread sense in this little village of America’s chickens having come home to roost.”

The comments were made on the ‘reverend’s’ blogsite, World of Stuart.

Not content with blaming America for the terrorist atrocity, Campbell turned his rabid froth on the three minute silence proposed in 2001 by the Council of Europe to demonstrate solidarity with the American people.

Finding himself in WH Smith at the designated time of the continent wide vigil, Campbell explained his reaction to those marking their respect for the 9/11 victims: “I was genuinely stunned, in the angry rather than the impressed sense.

“As I walked down the main street, looking at all these idiots standing stock still and silent outside River Island, I just thought: “Fuck you, you mawkish, maudlin cunts.”

“I bet you didn’t stand here like goons for the victims of Enniskillen, as if they’d have given a shit if you did. So why are you suddenly choking back tears for a bunch of American stockbrokers from even further away than Bosnia? Fucking hypocrites.” I kept on walking, and fired all their dirty looks right back at them.”

The Reverend has form on the terrorist outrage. In 2009, in a game forum thread, he confessed to an American game console fan that “9/11 was brilliant. I watched it all on TV and laughed the whole time.”

Yes! How those Americans must have laughed to know just how comically extreme the 'kind hearted reverend' really is.

Campbell said his laughing at 9/11 comment “was an ironic, sarcastic joke which set out to say the most offensive thing possible in order to illustrate a point.” The illustrated point being, of course, that he watched it all on TV and laughed the whole time – ‘comically extreme’.

Apologists defended the Reverend’s shocking outburst, claiming the comments were “taken out of context” and that they were, in fact, a joke.

Longstanding critic of the fraudulent ‘reverend’, Longshanker, put the “out of context” claim in context.

He said: “The context of Campbell’s laughter at the 9/11 tragedy goes way beyond the immediate context of the quote and the surrounding hateful outbursts.

“Campbell had been criticised on a games forum by people more knowledgable than him over a feature he had written for Retro Gamer magazine on a games franchise called Metal Slug.

“The forum is, and was, dedicated to the Neo-Geo games console. The Metal Slug franchise is revered by these guys.

“It’s telling that Campbell’s critics were American. Campbell clearly holds a pathological hatred for America or Americans, as can be seen from his Al-Qaeda sympathising comments quoted here.

“Also worth noting, context wise, is that Campbell was 41 when he made these comments – not just some silly adolescent games geek trying to say the most outrageous thing he could in order to gain notoriety and a reputation as a bit of a ‘naughty’ boy.

“41 year old Campbell made the 9/11 statement in the full knowledge that the limited audience for his toxic offensiveness were Americans on an American forum.

“So, whether the laughing at 9/11 comment was a joke or not, it should still be taken within the context that it was said, that is, to deliberately offend an American audience in the most disgustingly noxious and targeted form possible.

“Anyone claiming otherwise has no concept of context.

“I wonder how Campbell’s cabal of piss-pathetic apologists will excuse his ‘mawkish, maudlin cunts’ comment. Unless, of course, they agree. Which, knowing the apologist type who hang on Campbell’s every word, they probably will.”

Campbell, 46, is a middle-aged, childless, partnerless, siblingless, “oddball” loner, who takes pictures of his shadow on solitary walks and articulates the voice of a certain type of flag and soil Scot, in Scotland.

He also blames 9/11 for his loss of a living, games magazines surrendering to advertisers – as if games magazines had ever done anything else pre or post 9/11 – and the wholesale corruption of the games industry.

Duncan's a thoughtful fellow. We're sure he'll put those thoughts into context.

Campbell claimed Duncan Hothersall had an agenda against Wings “…based on extensive personal experience of Hothersall issuing a long string of despicable lies, defamations, smears and general falsehoods in an attempt to discredit this site.” Ironically, Campbell cited the Tweet above to clear his name. Ye couldnae make it up.




Filed under Diplomacy, Newspeak, Wangs Watch

Exclusive: Wings Over Scotland’s philanthropy set to implode

SELF-SERVING propagandist and would be public philanthropist Stuart Campbell of Wings Over Scotland may have some serious explaining to do to the contributors of his latest Indiegogo fundraising wheeze. AhDinnaeKen reports:

Indeed, it is unbelievable Hannah. But maybe not in the way you believed.

Indeed, it is unbelievable Hannah. But maybe not in the way you believed.

By Longshanker aka @ergasiophobe

IT INCREASINGLY looks like “kind hearted Reverend Stuart Campbell” will be left with egg on his face following his public championing of a convicted thief, jailbird and self confessed drug addict.

Louisa Sewell, 32, of Kidderminster – the would be beneficiary of the ‘reverend’s’ widely publicised benevolence fundraiser – may not be the benefits sanction ‘victim’ she appeared to be.

On November 2014 she was charged with conspiring to commit fraud by using a bank card belonging to “vulnerable” woman Pamela Brighton.

Sewell was committed to appear at Worcester Crown Court in January this year suspected of being part of a predatory gang which callously stole and spent almost £5000 of Ms Brighton’s life savings.

As reported in the Shuttle. The source of the story which moved the 'humane' reverend.

As reported in the Kidderminster Shuttle last year. The shuttle was the source of the story which spurred the ‘humane’ reverend into fundraiser action.

Four members of the gang were later convicted of the crime, with gang leader Joanne Railton, receiving a 23 month jail sentence and a restraining order barring her from contacting Ms Brighton for three years.

Railton, a serial thief and drug addict, is Facebook friends with Sewell and, judging by Ms Sewell’s Facebook posts, drug addiction is another common interest she shares with Railton.

On 30th August 2014, Sewell posted on her Facebook page that she was “baaaaaack …got outa jail after 18 days”.

According to Sewell she “put myself in jail to detox, refused the meth”.

“I can finally wake up like “normal ppl” she said.

Campbell, editor of Wings Over Scotland and self-appointed champion of Sewell, is currently using his Twitter feed to bash the Scottish media for not reporting his public act of philanthropy – as if they were under some sort of moral obligation to buy into the cynical falsehood being perpetrated by the story.

A little light reading between the lines and a modicum of digging by AhDinnaeKen demonstrates why the majority of the Scottish media showed little interest in Campbell’s self-serving publicity wheeze.

Maybe the likes of STV’s besotted schmuck Stephen Daisley, the Herald’s out of kilter Iain McWhirter, or the numerous duped contributors – like Hannah Burdell MP – to the Stuart Campbell adulation fundraiser could explain to the Wings man the value of basic journalistic follow up procedures when going to bat based on a locally reported news story.

It would be less embarrassing for him and less expensive for everyone else involved if he was to do so in future. His followers, without irony, refer to his thousands of polemics as “forensic” in their analysis. Quite!

Several newspapers throughout the country, mostly England, reported on Campbell’s fundraiser as if he was a man of the cloth or a church leader. Campbell even tweeted such phrases used by the papers in mockery of the honest mistake.

“Reverend” still buys you a modicum of respect with the press and clearly demonstrates that your story gets an easier, less scrupulous, ride. The English media are plainly not aware of Campbell’s ‘reverend’ credentials or his anti-UK/Tory/Labour/Westminster and pro-SNP/iScotland agenda.

Maybe the cabal of self adoring “cybernats”, so keen to backslap themselves and praise ‘reverend’ Campbell as the totem of their maudlin and contrived charitable acts, should revisit Alex Salmond MP’s pearl of wisdom when he said, “I’m innately suspicious of someone who calls himself a reverend who isn’t.”

Indeed. The Sewell affair appears to justify Salmond’s suspicion.

What will Campbell’s coterie of smug morally superior acolytes have to say?

Time will tell.

Maybe they can answer the most pertinent questions asked here by AhDinnaeKen.

Don’t hold your breath waiting though.

Man of the cloth demands his charitable act should be publicised. Nothing narcissistic about that.

Man of the cloth demands his charitable act should be publicised. Nothing narcissistic about that.



Filed under Opinion, Wangs Watch

Wings Over Scotland and the poverty porn vanity project of champions

WINGS OVER Scotland’s Stuart Campbell did an allegedly good and kind thing recently. Donning the cloak and mantle of a philanthropic samaritan, he ran an Indiegogo fundraiser with the intention of helping a recently convicted thief pay her draconian court case fees and fines. But is this ‘act of kindness’ anything other than a tokenised “gesture” of narcissistic self promotion and fetishised poverty porn? AhDinnaeKen investigates:

Self promotion and chastising of the Scottish media in one Tweet. Result!

Self promotion and chastising of the Scottish media in one Tweet. Result!

“There is a place where kindliness and charity tips into narcissism and self-promotion.” – Eric Joyce – Wings Over Scotland contributor.

By Longshanker aka @ergasiophobe

STUART CAMPBELL of Wings Over Scotland elevated his status to that of social media sainthood recently.

At least, he did so, in the eyes of his more gullible followers and supporters.

The “kind” “reverend” organised an Indiegogo appeal to raise funds needed to pay convicted thief, Louisa Sewell’s, court fees.

Those with a more sceptical eye may have spotted a few things ‘not quite right’ about the “reverend’s” alleged benevolence.

According to Campbell, as soon as he became aware of Sewell’s predicament, he was so overcome with compassion he felt compelled to do something.

“Help make it happen for a small gesture of solidarity and Stuart Campbell!” ran the heart tugging mendicant styled phraseology at the bottom of Campbell’s Indiegogo fundraiser page.

Help make it happen - for Stuart.

Help make it happen – for Stuart.

A somewhat curious choice of wording, given the beneficiary of the charitable donations is supposed to be Sewell, not Campbell

Perhaps, like many, we’re missing something by the phrase “make it happen for… Stuart Campbell’. Perhaps not. It’s the first of many indicators that Campbell’s so called “gesture of solidarity” was nothing other than an onanistic exercise in vainglorious “narcissism and self-promotion”.

A quick trawl of the Wings timeline revealed that the fund had been set up with no contact having taken place between Campbell and Sewell or Sewell’s lawyer.

A curious state of affairs, considering that the “kind” “reverend” should choose to champion her without at least the courtesy of seeking her permission to do so beforehand.

Some might call it arrogant presumption on Campbell’s behalf. Others would see it for what it is…

Effectively, Campbell’s action has stripped the unfortunate Ms Sewell of any dignity she may have had left by making her a widely publicised “charity” case – whether she chose to be the recipient of his ‘charitable’ act or not.

Indeed, it’s a full-on tip of the hat to the dark side of neo-Dickensian Victoriana, where Campbell is publicly parading his charitable acts and expecting plaudits for doing so – witness the allegedly humorous tweet chastising the Daily Record and Daily Mail (above).

Tasteless and exploitative at best, calculated and manipulative at worst.

What’s most curious though and serves as a demonstration of the double standards, bordering on criminal stupidity, of Campbell’s alleged “media monitoring” role is the “facts” the papers missed out.

In a Wings blog Campbell wrote, “We explained this site’s most fundamental purpose as being to teach people how to read between the lines and spot what isn’t being said.”

There are quite a few important things which aren’t being said in the original story reported in The Kidderminster Shuttle newspaper.

Anyone with a modicum of emotional intelligence might have found out the answers before becoming a public champion of the poor hungry benefits victim forced to steal confectionery to feed herself.

According to the Shuttle, Ms Sewell stole a pack of Mars bars because her benefits had been sanctioned and she had been hungry for days.

Missing information i.e. “what isn’t being said” includes the following:

  1. Unemployment in Kidderminster is very low at approx 2 per cent of the working population (ONS figures). What was Ms Sewell sanctioned for?
  2. What circumstances led to Ms Sewell being hungry for days? (aside from the obvious).
  3. Sewell’s solicitor claimed in court Sewell had no one to turn to. Why didn’t she visit Kidderminster’s Salvation Army? They do food parcels for those in need and it’s less than 600m away from the Kidderminster Jobcentre.
  4. The original report said that Sewell had received Foodbank vouchers. The Kidderminster foodbank is approx 100m away from the Jobcentre. When was Sewell issued with the vouchers and why couldn’t she visit the foodbank? The shop the Mars bars were stolen from – Heron Foods – is approximately 200m away from the Jobcentre and the foodbank is on the way.
  5. The Kidderminster Shuttle reported the magistrate as saying: “We do not readily accept you go into a shop to steal just for being hungry.” What else was said by the Magistrate in summation before sentencing? One sensational and emotionally charged line in a local newspaper is hardly enough to provide the full picture.
  6. Does Sewell have previous convictions for theft or crimes of dishonesty? There is no mention anywhere of this pertinent fact.
  7. Campbell claimed in follow up newspaper reports that Sewell “was failed by society on so many levels and at so many points down the line it’s just horrific.” How could he tell from the condensed ‘news value’ information provided by the Kidderminster Shuttle report?

For someone who claims to “teach” people to “read between the lines and spot what isn’t being said”, Campbell made some heavily amateurish and clumsy presumptions in his kneejerk sentiment based reaction.

Indeed, benefit sanction ‘victim’ stories provide archetypal emotionally charged ground for propagandists like Campbell to exploit and manipulate for their own self-serving purpose: anger coupled with maudlin sentiment masquerading as civic pride and noble expressions of collective identity.

Courtesy and etiquette doesn't even come into it.

Courtesy and etiquette doesn’t even come into it.

Opportunism plays its part, of course, as does a Nationalist mindset where the fate of Ms Sewell isn’t anywhere near as important as the opportunity to chastise the ‘evil’ UK welfare system and the Scottish media – all fundamentally underpinned by Campbell’s calculated self-promotion and narcissism.

Perhaps AhDinnaeKen is being too sceptical. We know through practical experience and numerous examples, just how brutal, unjust and uncaring the current welfare system can be on some of the most vulnerable people in society.

But it’s just such opportune circumstances which allow extremists like Campbell to cynically manipulate and play with people’s emotions in order to achieve their self-serving aims.

If Ms Sewell truly is a poor victim then, to a degree, it’s all well and good that her draconian court fees and fines are going to be paid for her.

However, anyone thinking Campbell’s fundraiser was about the fate of Louisa Sewell needs to think again. It was always about Campbell.

As his Tweets and posts prove, Sewell’s story is the sideshow. The star attraction is Campbell himself. Take a look at the collective and maudlin expressions of thanks aimed at him if you find that hard to believe.

Poverty porn fetishism serves only the purveyors.

Who’s the real beneficiary of this story? Hint, it isn’t Louisa Sewell.

Who's going to monitor the media monitoring the media. Melissa would be hopeless at it.

Who’s going to monitor the media monitoring the media? Melissa would be hopeless at it.



Filed under CyberNats, Opinion, Wangs Watch

Wings Over Scotland: Hate preaching bigot or ahem, ‘professional journalist’? You decide.

Can hate preaching, no matter how articulate or allegedly eloquent, ever be called ahem, ‘professional journalism’? AhDinnaeKen doffs the trusty cap of fair minded and honest journalism (cough) and investigates the hate preaching sectarian bigot calling himself Rev Stuart Campbell.

[Reader warning: This piece is overly long by AhDinnaeKen’s standards. If you want to read the essence of the piece go to the subhead “Warning: The following contains distressing examples of a complete lack of ahem, ‘professional journalism.'”]

Pretentious? Moi?

Pretentious? Moi?

By Longshanker

I was going to write this some time ago and refer to a different blog piece to make my point. But, time, lack of interest and boredom got in the way. It was a short, concise and pithy quote which brought things into sharp focus and spurred me into action:

“Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice.”  ( Ayaan Hirsi Ali )

When I read this minimalist and elegant quote I realised that I could no longer tolerate the bile and hatred and intolerance which pours out of the so called ahem, ‘professional journalist’ of the Wings Over Scotland blog, Rev Stuart Campbell.

On 13 September 2012 the self proclaimed ‘media monitoring watcher of the watchmen’ vented his spleen in a manner which can only be described as revoltingly and repulsively abhorrent – beyond the ken of normal humanity.

The Rev Stu piece, ‘No justice for the 96‘, outlining the Rev’s alternative take on the Hillsborough disaster  exhibits a clear lack of spiritual and human empathy which actually made me feel sorry for this individual’s lack of soul or connectedness to his fellow human beings.

Any human being who could take the time out to write and articulate such a piece, calling Liverpool fans “murderous” killers and “reckless cretins” is clearly spiritually desolate, intellectually challenged and in need of a nervous system carrying those dual humane weaknesses of  emotion and empathy.

The empty vacuum in this individual’s life is plainly eased when he fills it with the type of  hatred, bigotry and gross ignorance witnessed in the ‘No justice for the 96’ hate piece.

Onyhoo, that’s enough of the Rev’s pathology, or lack, thereof. This AhDinnaeKen piece has been written to debunk one of the Rev’s oft repeated false homilies – namely that of being an ahem, ‘professional journalist’.

A brief foray into Wikipedia defines the aim of journalism as follows:

It is intended to inform society about itself and to make public, things that would otherwise be private.

Whereas the Rev’s ahem, ‘professional journalism’ tends to inform you more about the Rev’s personality and makes public things virtually no one else with an ounce of humanity would say in public. Conveniently, his ahem, ‘professional journalism’ exposes the deeply unpleasant schoolboy idiocy resident in the psyche of the self alleged ahem, ‘professional journalist’.

Basic journalism tutorial alert

The following paragraph long tutorial is for the Rev. Consider it my gift/donation to your campaign. You plainly need it much more than you need my pound:

Basic journalism runs along these lines: Check facts. Verify sources. Obtain quotes. Look for corroborating evidence in sympathy with or supportive of your original assertion. Then, when you’re sure of your facts and you’re sure your claim is sound, source a potential alternative view which possesses some sort of authority. In this instance an eye witness account would be perfect. Failing that, a quote from an expert in a subject, say, like crowd disasters or hydrostatics.

Tutorial over – the best pound sterling I’ve never spent.

When I first read No justice for the 96  I thought I was going to find something out about the Hillsborough disaster I had never known before. At the very least I expected an earth shattering revelation or two providing corroborating evidence that, as per one of the Rev’s claims, the pushing action of Liverpool fans was deliberately ‘murderous’ and caused the fatal crush in the middle Leppings Lane pens at Hillsborough.

I remembered, vaguely at first, another publication by News International which made similar headline claims quite a few years ago. The proprietor of that publication is still around now and he’s a prime ‘backscratching’ friend of Alex Salmond. But I digress.

Before anyone gets uppity and feels the need to leap to Rev Stu’s defence, consider the evidence being presented here first. I’m not writing this out of malice. I’ll confess to not liking the Rev. But, I feel sorry for him first and I couldn’t hate him because I don’t do hate. As Martin Luther King, Jr said: ” I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear.”

AhDinnaeKen recently pointed out a laughable schoolboy error in a piece of the Rev’s attacking a low-grade propaganda leaflet published by the Better Together campaign. The same basic schoolboy error is made in ‘No justice for the 96’, though this time it isn’t laughable; it’s vile, hateful, abhorrent and disgusting. And, if the Rev knew shame, he would be ashamed.

Warning: The following contains distressing examples of a complete lack of ahem, ‘professional journalism.’

Consider the following accusation/assertion in Rev Stu’s ‘No justice for the 96’:

“At Hillsborough, EVERYONE pushing their way into the tunnel KNEW perfectly well that it opened into an enclosed area with no exits, hemmed in by overhanging steel fences, which minutes before kick-off was likely to already be crammed with people, and which took the inherently-hazardous form of a stairway.”

[Emphasis by AhDinnaeKen]

EVERYONE KNEW! Wow! This is an entirely false and tediously cretinously moronically hateful and unjustifiable assertion. If it were true, following the logic of the piece,  then EVERYONE forming part of the crush – including those being crushed in the tunnel –  is a homicidally “murderous” individual willfully contributing to the slaughter of their fellow fans with “lethal stupidity”.

Breathtakingly, the Rev later repeats just such an  assertion:

“The reality is much simpler, and required no lying – the fans were to blame because they, alone, were the ones who pushed and thereby caused the crush.”

Truly an earth shattering revelation – if remotely true.  But, for such a revelation to be truly earth shattering it needs to be, at least, partly true. The assertion needs some corroborative fact based empirical evidence behind it to, y’know, reinforce the heinous claim.

You can read ‘No justice for the 96’ as many times as you want – empirical evidential based facts backing up the sick hateful claim are notable by their complete absence. Nyada. Not a one. There is not one fact, no matter how strung out or remotely tenuous, available ANYWHERE in the piece to back up the Rev’s accusation that EVERYONE KNEW they were killing others and pushed regardless.

In fact the only evidence provided is the Rev’s own experience in a crush at a Barrowlands concert. And even here, we have no demonstrably empirical facts such as crowd density, crowd numbers, dimensions of venue, injuries, potential dangers, pressure equivalents or similarity to circumstances played out at Hillsborough.

No, the only evidence provided is that the Rev had space to move backwards by acting with the same kind of  anti-social recklessness and abandon he accredits to Liverpool fans:

“So I started jabbing my elbows and heels behind me, and worked my way back through the crowd to a safer spot near the sides.”

If you’ve got space to do that, then you’re not in a fatal crush situation. You’re nowhere near it. Survivors of the Leppings Lane pens spoke of being unable to move their arms – they were pinned in a vice like grip. They relate the extreme difficulty in breathing. Every breath is a desperate gulp for life and every exhalation potentially your last.

Now, this piece could go on, but it’s too long already. There’s plenty more in the Rev hate piece which could be debunked. But each time I read it I get angrier and sadder.

The reason I get angry is simple – I’m a human being with a nervous system. Some of the Rev’s lines are ghoulishly necrotic, relishing in the death throes of the damned at Hillsborough:

“And space was indeed created, from the only place it possibly could be – the rib cages of the people already on the terracing.”

“…the irresponsible, reckless cretins who pushed into a solid wall of bodies even as agonised screams cut the air in front of them.”

And the reason I get sadder is simple also. A soul or spirit has to be some kind of arid and desolately empty and driven by a pathological hatred of fellow human beings to write such fundamentally dishonest and hateful assertions.

Kelvin McKenzie was behind the Sun’s smear. What motivation lies behind the Rev’s?

It’s certainly not journalistic integrity or professionalism. The Rev is as much a ‘professional journalist’ as a small boy wearing a helmet, sitting in a cardboard box and making engine sounds, is a professional astronaut.

The Rev starts his ‘No justice for the 96’ with some risibly pretentious and sanctimoniously facile bombast which initially made me laugh out loud. He has the temerity to quote Orwell on journalism:

“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.”

Assuming that the Rev has now allegedly reached his professional Egoagogo begging target, consider another quote from Mr Orwell:

“The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.”

No justice for the 96 is an atrocity toward journalism. It twists and mocks the basic fundamentals which make true professional journalism an absolute essential in a working democracy. No justice for the 96 demonstrates a motivation and intent driven by a pathological hatred which can fairly and squarely be labeled a hate crime.

Yet quite a few hundred fellow Nationalist independence sympathisers seem to think the Rev’s brand of hate preaching passes as ahem, ‘professional journalism’.

It would be funny if it didn’t so tragically fulfil some hackneyed old cliches and stereotypes regarding the communal delusion required for Nationalism to work.

If you donated your pound or more to the Rev’s Egoagogo campaign, you’re virtually as guilty as the Rev of hate preaching because you’re condoning it as acceptable. Hang your heads in shame and repent. I’ll forgive you. Don’t expect me to forgive the Rev.

I’ll finish with a quote from the Hillsborough Independent Panel (HIP) who painstakingly adjudicated on the amassed evidence of the Hillsborough tragedy:

“…the SYP Police Federation, supported informally by the SYP chief constable, sought to develop and publicise a version of events that focused on several police officers’ allegations of drunkenness, ticketlessness and violence among a large number of Liverpool fans. This extended beyond the media to Parliament.

“Yet, from the mass of documents, television and CCTV coverage disclosed to the panel there is NO EVIDENCE to support these allegations other than a few isolated examples of aggressive or verbally abusive behaviour clearly reflecting frustration and desperation.”

Worth remembering that the HIP sifted through a metaphorical and literal mountain of evidence to come to such a conclusion.

What empirical evidence based facts did the Rev provide for his polar opposite conclusion that the Liverpool fans were murderously culpable? None. Unless, of course, you count an anecdotal example of jostling in an uncomfortably crowded Barrowlands more substantial than the evidence available to the HIP.

Now that’s what I call ahem, ‘professional journalism.’

Get your money back Egoagogo suckers. You’ve been sold a pup.


Filed under Wangs Watch