Should Everton Ban The S*n

[DerbyshireAndHarper]

I thought it was very much a washing of the hands attempt

"Kelvin isn't part of the sports writing section, yet we've been banned for what he said"

The answer to that, of course, is that the main editorial side of the paper should take responsibility.

Instead of the sports journos going 'Boo hoo, those nasty EFC people punishing us for something our colleague(s) did', maybe those sports journos should aim their ire at their superiors for allowing this perfectly reasonable response by EFC to occur.

People like Tony Barrett and Colin Murray left News International employment specifically because they could not marry their consciences with their continued employment with people who allow stuff like this to happen.

 

[ToffeeTim]

If I was in charge all the footy would be on the BBC.

If I were in charge I'd scrap the bbc lol

 

[Chunky Frankfurter]

Absolutely. [Poor language removed] them.

Sorry for the poor language, but surely mods understand.

 

[MACCA75]

As dislikable as Murdoch is you have to draw a line somewhere. Otherwise you could argue that we should ban Coke for advertising on Sky. Or whatever product you can think of.

This dispicable article was written in The Sun. A newspaper that should have been banned a long while ago. Written by a man who is already a pariah in Liverpool for his previous disgusting collusion with that newspaper.

It's fairly easy to see the line should be, and has been drawn in the correct place, and this awful filth of a newspaper has been banned.

 

[Minimeister]

Worth remembering that the BBC regularly hired this abomination of a human being as some sort of 'man of the people' for it's Question Time programme. We all know that the S*n and this idiot belong with each other but the BBC happily paid a bloke who was willing to put people through a nightmare to protect his elitist pals and shat all over people who were murdered. Yet they seem to get away with it.

 

[Barnfred 55]

It's annoying how people seem to be concentrating on the racist element of it. I do agree that the gorilla comment was out of order but I’m willing to believe that although misguided, racism may not have been the intention. What he said about Liverpool was beyond the pale however. Firstly, making a derogatory (and incorrect comment about us all being on minimum wage...Like that's a problem even if it was true. It was sheer elitism. And then there was the drug dealer element and the fact that it was published on the eve of the Hillsborough anniversary by a journalist who should never be writing about Liverpool again, never mind a smear article!


I think the racism element has taken away from the real issue and the usual 'PC gone mad' brigade have diluted what he actually said.

Yes, it was derogatory to Merseyside people in general, but to me the bigger issue was that it was a personal attack on one of our own, at a time when he was most vulnerable. Somebody who was also the apparent innocent victim of an unprovoked attack, which seems to have been totally disregarded as it didn't suit his agenda. The column was both insulting and abusive in the extreme, irrespective of whether there was any racial undertone intended.

It was all done so he could score points with his like minded followers, without any regard for the feelings of Ross Barkley or his family. McKenzie and journalists like him shouldn't be allowed to write such trash with impunity and I'm very happy the club have taken the actions. I'll also be happy if the law do treat it as a racial attack because, intended or not, McKenzie and the filth paper he works for need to be taught a lesson. I also hope Ross takes them to the cleaners.

 

[balggy]

I'll give my view but I am conscious that this is a very sensitive subject and should be treated as such.

Since the Hillsborough disaster, there has been a boycott of that despicable hate filled rag across Merseyside. I am proud of the fact, that as a region, we stood up and did not accept their smears. I can't begin to imagine the immense pain and upset felt by the families.

Since the 2012 independent panel report, the S*n have continued to conduct themselves in an appealing manner. Apologising but at the same time continuing to employ McKenzie. Them and the Times, being the only two papers not to run with the story on their front page after the inquests findings, particular respect to Tony Barrett for resigning from the Times (and to Colin Murray for leaving TalkSport after they got taken over by the owners of the S*n). There recent actions only go to illustrate the contempt in which they hold this city.

I would never by that disgusting rag and I am proud to say that I don't know anyone who would. I am sure that I am no different to the vast majority of posters on this forum when I say that.

However, I also remember the days after referendum last year, when immigrants and ethnic minorities were being told to go home, Arkadiusz Jóźwik a polish man was murdered in Harlow. Only last month an asylum seeker was viciously attacked. I've never feared that some of my mates might be on the wrong end of xenophobic abuse but I was in June and I sill am now. My mates, who's parents had migrated here many years ago were very worried by how acceptable it was becoming to make racist comments.

At this time, there was one paper that stood out more than most for it's anti immigrant vitriolic ramblings; Paul Dacre's Daily Mail. I was disgusted when the S*n and the Times didn't put the inquests findings on its front page. I was also disgusted when the Daily Mail put the sentencing of Thomas Mair, for the murder of Jo Cox on page 30. I wonder why the Daily Mail were the only page not to lead with the story on the front page?

I would never buy a copy of the S*n but I would also refuse to take a penny from the immigrant bashing rag that is the Daily Mail.

On this subject, I applaud Gary Lineker, who in the face of a tabloid backlash has thrown his weight behind the "stop funding hate" campaign
https://twitter.com/StopFundingHate

It's great to see that Jamie Carragher speak out against the S*n, only yesterday he retweeted Everton's statement.

However, I hold Gary Lineker in much higher regard for calling out disgusting journalism in all of its forms, regardless of what rag publishes it, rather than Jamie Carragher, Steven Gerrard and Dalglish who have all at one time or another wrote for the Daily Mail, in my view the most xenephobic paper in the country.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...y-Dalglish-Ive-knocked-changes-Liverpool.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/columnist-1095581/Steven-Gerrard-Daily-Mail.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/columnist-1076287/Jamie-Carragher-Daily-Mail.html

Its great to see Everton ban the S*n but lets tackle disgusting, hate filled journalism in all its forms and never forget how a journalists words can cause so much upset to so many people.

 

[Khalekan]

Maybe I'm taking a simplistic view and maybe it's because I'm younger, but to me the Sun published the stuff this week and in the aftermath of Hillsborough so the Sun have been rightly punished and banned. But I don't understand the clamour for banning all other media sources with theslightest ounce of connection. Sky didn't even exist in 89 as far as I'm aware.

But I dunno, maybe I'm being simplistic. Also I don't think it's been a complete media blackout on sky, I think Stelling said something like Ross has been in the headlines "some unwanted, some unwarranted". But yes it wasn't mentioned in any length. But then they were talking to Pinochhio and I zoned out mainly lol

I do not disagree with what you say, Tim.

And for that very reason I have long opposed a ban on The Sun.

It is just that although as you say, Sky did no even exist back then, they are now getting into bed with their News Corp stablemates and not reporting on this controversy.

By doing so they are validating those whom held the opinion that banning the Sun whilst taking the Sky shilling was hypocrisy.

Which in light of these latest developments it most assuredly is.

But.

As @Woolly Blue has posted, we cannot just take the moral high ground and tell Sky where to go.

We do that, we will be in League One in a few years.

So I am happy enough for EFC to take the Sky money whilst at the same time telling Sun reporters to bugger off.

Hypocrisy?

Sure, IMO.

Am I bothered about it?

Not on yer nelly

 

[Roger Milla]

Maybe I'm taking a simplistic view and maybe it's because I'm younger, but to me the Sun published the stuff this week and in the aftermath of Hillsborough so the Sun have been rightly punished and banned. But I don't understand the clamour for banning all other media sources with theslightest ounce of connection. Sky didn't even exist in 89 as far as I'm aware.

But I dunno, maybe I'm being simplistic. Also I don't think it's been a complete media blackout on sky, I think Stelling said something like Ross has been in the headlines "some unwanted, some unwarranted". But yes it wasn't mentioned in any length. But then they were talking to Pinochhio and I zoned out mainly lol

I personally believe Murdoch ok'd that front page in 1989 therefore i'm quite happy not to purchase anything that lines the pockets of his.

 

[Jokerdan]

Talking about it now on TalkSport. The bottom line is how did McKenzies article get past the editorial staff? Shape changing cruds.

 

[Walsall Blue]

As dislikable as Murdoch is you have to draw a line somewhere. Otherwise you could argue that we should ban Coke for advertising on Sky. Or whatever product you can think of.

This dispicable article was written in The Sun. A newspaper that should have been banned a long while ago. Written by a man who is already a pariah in Liverpool for his previous disgusting collusion with that newspaper.

It's fairly easy to see the line should be, and has been drawn in the correct place, and this awful filth of a newspaper has been banned.

Can't ban coke and spoil our away days .

 

[Khalekan]

Yes, it was derogatory to Merseyside people in general, but to me the bigger issue was that it was a personal attack on one of our own, at a time when he was most vulnerable. Somebody who was also the apparent innocent victim of an unprovoked attack, which seems to have been totally disregarded as it didn't suit his agenda. The column was both insulting and abusive in the extreme, irrespective of whether there was any racial undertone intended.

It was all done so he could score points with his like minded followers, without any regard for the feelings of Ross Barkley or his family. McKenzie and journalists like him shouldn't be allowed to write such trash with impunity and I'm very happy the club have taken the actions. I'll also be happy if the law do treat it as a racial attack because, intended or not, McKenzie and the filth paper he works for need to be taught a lesson. I also hope Ross takes them to the cleaners.

Indeed, Fred.

I don't know what other forums you post on but I post on a few and I am sad to report that McKenzie is finding quite a bit of support outwith fans of EFC and the RS.

 

[Khalekan]

Here's a point.

Why is EFC a lone voice in this?

Have the PFA nowt to say about the Sun traducing this young player, a member of their Union?

Or the F.A.?

Or the EPL?

Or for that matter, why aren't individual clubs coming out and taking a stand?

 

[roydo]

Absolutely. [Poor language removed] them.

Sorry for the poor language, but surely mods understand.

No.

Dont swear. Its surely not that hard is it?

 

[Barnfred 55]

Indeed, Fred.

I don't know what other forums you post on but I post on a few and I am sad to report that McKenzie is finding quite a bit of support outwith fans of EFC and the RS.

I only post on here mate but I do read a lot of other sites as I like to get an independant viewpoint too.

I was reading either the Mail or Guardian site earlier. Cant remember which one. But somebody, who claimed to be a United fan but who knows, was having a dig at the McKenzie column. His complaint?. That it united the blue and red halfs of Merseyside.