I notice that Liverpool have now banned reporters from The Sun from their stadium and training ground.


A somewhat belated move but one that I strongly feel we should copy to show unswerving solidarity.

Reader Comments (47)

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer

Brent Stephens
1 Posted 10/02/2017 at 15:54:57
Scott, I suspect The Sun will get round any LFC match day ban by just watching a live stream of matches and reporting as if they were there. As for interviews, they make everything up anyway, so no problem. But I don't disagree with the ban, as it sends an important message.
Andrew Ellams
2 Posted 10/02/2017 at 16:12:56
We will beat Liverpool.

Every Premier League club should follow Liverpool FC's action against The Sun, clean the lying shit-raking bastards out.

Ed Fitzgerald
3 Posted 10/02/2017 at 16:40:14
In my opinion, if Liverpool have enforced a ban, we should out of respect to the families of the 96, also ban The Sun. There will be many families with both Blues and Reds in them. Let's face, it they smeared the whole city with their lies.
Patrick Murphy
4 Posted 10/02/2017 at 16:54:29
I agree strongly with the sentiments of banning The Sun, however, part of me doesn't like the idea of being dictated to by other parties on what should and shouldn't be bought or read.

I've never purchased that newspaper or even read it for many many years for a variety of reasons and particularly their reporting about that fateful day in 1989.

Both clubs are more than happy to take the money from Sky which is strongly associated with Rupert Murdoch and his family, the clubs would have made more of a point by refusing entry to the Sky cameras or refusing to take the money off him and his company.

The fans are free to make their own decisions on this matter and I fully support their stance but Everton FC shouldn't be castigated if they choose not to ban The Sun.

James Hughes
5 Posted 10/02/2017 at 17:01:27
The Sun is not worth the paper it is wasted on, BUT this is just posturing. If that lot were that bothered, they should have done it years ago. Why wait this long???
John G Davies
6 Posted 10/02/2017 at 17:23:03
I wholeheartedly agree with the ban on that newspaper and all who work for it. As mentioned above, they tarnished the name of a city not just a football club.

However, I would be happier if all the ex-players from their club who work for Sky refused the Murdoch shilling.

Brian Harrison
7 Posted 10/02/2017 at 17:30:40
So they have waited over 25 years to ban the rag's journalists from their ground. Pity they didn't put a stop to both Grobbelar and Souness writing articles for the rag.

As Patrick says, but they still take Murdoch's Sky money – now if they refused to take this, then I would say this is a club that puts principles before money but they won't.

I have to say well done to Colin Murray who had a show on TalkSport but, when The Sun took over the station, he quit for that reason.

James Hughes
8 Posted 10/02/2017 at 17:51:50
John G, nice thought and we might get a bit more balance on Sky. The more I think about this the more it appears just hypocrisy by LFC

Scousers pissing on the dead – yeah that was fucking real reporting...

Michael Kenrick
9 Posted 10/02/2017 at 18:49:44
Sun took over TalkSport? Fuck, I missed that one... Explains a lot though. How come we aren't boycotting TalkSport???

Actually this is so belated, to my mind it is a ridiculous show of mock 'solidarity' from LFC. It would have meant something 28 years ago... but for the RedShite to take this step now, after numerous grovelling apologies have been utterly rejected, has the feeling of an Italian "dead to me" vendetta that will never be forgotten.

Of course, that's the whole point... but the fact that none of the journalist scum responsible actually work there anymore or were ever taken to task makes it a rather hollow gesture, methinks.

Colin Glassar
10 Posted 10/02/2017 at 19:03:44
Both of us should've banned The Sun decades ago. Better late then never, I suppose. I don't even look at the headlines, on-line, of that crass, piece of shit, so-called newspaper. They are the original Fake News spewers.

I can imagine the Custiss brothers being outraged and going after the RS with both barrels.

Anyone seen poor Johnny Heitinga's interview? The poor bugger can no longer afford private jets and luxury villas. I think we should give him a testimonial.

Dermot Byrne
11 Posted 10/02/2017 at 19:18:31
Issue getting a bit mixed up here:

1. Ban The Sun for Hillsborough coverage. Well to me this seems too little way too late now. Everybody agrees on the disgraceful coverage but I have some doubts about motives now and the danger of remembering a dreadful paper rather than the victims.

2 Ban the Sun because of being a tacky tabloid, as Colin seems to suggest? My heart says do it tomorrow but also explain to Liverpool fans why you have banned The Star, The Mirror, The Express and The Mail.

Ste Traverse
12 Posted 10/02/2017 at 19:38:05
Fair play to Liverpool in banning The Sun. I'm just surprised they didn't do this years ago.
Peter Lee
13 Posted 10/02/2017 at 19:54:52
Don't understand the delay. If it mattered they should have done it as soon as the story was proven to be a lie and the "paper" refused an apology. Now that there has been an apology it seems a bit like posturing.

I'm a bit extreme on this one. I take the view that Murdoch is responsible for this. I never would buy his tabloid but I won't buy any of his other papers. I won't buy Sky either. Twenty years ago my daughters, now 26 and 24, asked when we would get Sky I told them "When Murdoch dies." I explained and they never asked again.

Kristian Boyce
14 Posted 10/02/2017 at 20:08:50
Michael (#9), News Corp bought them about 6 months ago. Like others have said, I get the reasoning behind it, but after 28 years it's a little delayed. It would of meant more when the journalists who wrote the lies were still at the paper. With the rise of the internet, newspaper readership is at a all time low, so the ban isn't as effective as it would of been back then.

It will be interesting if this has a knock on effect from the wider News Corp family in regards to the ban, hopefully we'll see them less on TV from now on. But honestly with all the News Corp backed outlets out there, the Sun can use these sources as part of there reporting.

If the club wanted to make a serious statement, they should ban News Corp altogether, but with the Sky money that will never happen.

Brent Stephens
15 Posted 10/02/2017 at 20:19:42
Wild scenario. RS ban The Sun. Murdoch takes revenge by demanding that Sky Sports provides little coverage of, or reference to, rs games, and gets rid of all ex-rs commentators. Similarly demands all his media outlets steer clear of RS. Instead, he demands that all focus is on our beloved blues. How sad would that be?
Dermot Byrne
16 Posted 10/02/2017 at 20:26:06
They probably can't Kristian as playing in Premier League will have Sky coverage as part of the contract.

Or maybe they pull out of Premier League? No red would ever want that no matter what the issue. Takes me back to that Shankly quote about how important football is. Always thought it was utter bullshit.

I really think the most important thing is the city not forgetting those fans .And respecting other clubs who have also had tragedies. In my view gestures like this achieve nothing. It was the legal fight that had the substance and bravery.

Dermot Byrne
17 Posted 10/02/2017 at 20:31:49
Brent - when it comes to contracts worth hundreds of millions, those involved never do anything to threaten their profit. On both sides, they may make gestures, but they will never go as far as any threat to their profit.

And they will justify it all by saying it isn't what the fans at Hillsborough would have wanted. That may be true but never believe that is the real driving force.

Brent Stephens
18 Posted 10/02/2017 at 20:59:52
Aye, Dermot, that's why I said a wild scenario!
Dave Abrahams
19 Posted 10/02/2017 at 21:01:59
I don't understand this fight against The Sun, I know what is all about, bur Liverpool and their fans have won the WAR against The Sun and the establishment, who denied them justice for too long so why now try to win a battle.

I never bought the Sun before, like thousands of people, so I will not be buying it now, but let people make their own minds up whether they want to buy it or not.

Dermot Byrne
20 Posted 10/02/2017 at 21:02:01
The wildest mate. I agree with you.
Dermot Byrne
21 Posted 10/02/2017 at 21:06:49
Agree Dave. Sadly these things get turnout just the way those with good intentions never wanted. You know the thing, someone with a copy of The Sun beaten up by some pissed-up knobhead. Sadness for some, a much tougher emotion than anger.
Ed Fitzgerald
22 Posted 11/02/2017 at 05:32:39
For those who say why ban it now, I thought that might be fucking obvious – a public enquiry found a lot of people including The Sun fabricated stories about the fans. The Sun quite happily followed the Police line and the drivel spewed out by Bernard Ingham and Thatcher.

There were Evertonians who lost family members at Hillsrborough. Everton should ban The Sun to show support for the families who fought for justice.

I'm all for a free press but The Sun hardly proved itself to be 'free' did it, it knew the story was bullshit and still ran it. There are some issue that are more important than whether Lukaku signs a new contract or not, FFS.

Derek McMonagle
23 Posted 11/02/2017 at 06:27:48
The ban on the Sun journalists using the facilities at Anfield is long overdue. What happened at Hillsborough transcends local rivalry. I would like to see Everton show solidarity by instituting a similar ban.
Dermot Byrne
24 Posted 11/02/2017 at 08:33:24
I think you sum it up perfectly in your first sentence, Derek Mc.
Jeff Armstrong
25 Posted 11/02/2017 at 08:56:28
How is it a LFC supporter like Colin Murray actually leaves his employment at a now Murdoch owned franchise, but other, more closely associated reds like Caragher, Souness, Redknapp, etc are still happy to take Murdoch's dollar???
Marc Carran
26 Posted 11/02/2017 at 12:34:40
Patrick Murphy (#4)

Both clubs DO take the money from Sky, but it's not as if we have a choice, do we? The FA are a funny bunch who obviously did loads of loopholes and backhanders in order to give Sky the rights to almost play God, close to dictating the times when we should play football. I'd like to see a change in those rules, but it looks like it won't be any time soon.

Paul Kelly
27 Posted 12/02/2017 at 00:37:55
I'll stand by any RS for that atrocity, but now, banning the Sun...

The fella who wrote the article and stated that the allegations were just that, allegations! is dead, Kelvin McKenzie was the editor at the time (his decision to go to print with the headline) and he finished in the 90s.

I think the timing is all wrong, only them know why, you can make your own mind up.

Chris Leyland
28 Posted 12/02/2017 at 00:53:36
Ed Fitzgerald explains it perfectly above.

I hate the shite with a passion but Hillsborough impacted on a lot of people, red, blue and beyond the city Some issues transcend rivalry.

The orchestrated campaign to blame the fans of which the S#n was an intrinsic part and the ongoing cover up by them and the establishment is one of the greater scandals of our time. I whole-heartedly support their ban of that scummy piece of dirt and hope that we stand by them and do likewise.

Stan Schofield
29 Posted 12/02/2017 at 14:32:01
I would support banning The Sun, as part of a wider ban relating to the bigger organisation that owns The Sun. What happened with The Sun is the tip of an iceberg, evidenced by related issues such as phone hacking. Banning the bigger organisation would then presumably involve having nothing to do with Sky. So I would support LFC in their ban provided they extended that ban as indicated.

Without focusing on underlying problems (one of the purposes of a public inquiry such as the one into Hillsborough), and tackling these, banning only The Sun could be interpreted as posturing, and indeed insulting to the families of victims.

So I would support LFC in their ban provided the ban was against Sky.

Andy Crooks
30 Posted 12/02/2017 at 18:15:27
Banning the Sun for their iniquitous coverage in the past is pointless and an empty gesture, to me. Why not ban the Daily Mail, Star and Express too. Fuck me, they are odious enough. I don't have Sky and never will but if I want to watch Premier League football I have to bite the bullet and accept it for what it is.

I do, because it's the way it is and the only alternative is to watch my local amateurs. And, you know what, they fucking act like they are in the Premier League.

Chris Williams
31 Posted 12/02/2017 at 18:22:42
I agree, ban the whole bloody lot of them.

Load of arseholes peddling prejudice and bile, and that's only the football writers.

Steavey Buckley
32 Posted 14/02/2017 at 11:33:16
Banning Sky? Where do you think Everton are getting most of their income from?
Peter McHugh
33 Posted 14/02/2017 at 11:50:35
It's a tough one for me. I don't buy or read The Sun but I do watch Sky which does make me feel... hypocritical.

I think the families should be consulted and asked. If they think it would be right to ban The Sun, do it.

I would also support banning Sky whatever the consequences with or without LFC, if that's what the families wanted. Then again I have not just ploughed 𧴜s of millions into EFC.

Bobby Mallon
34 Posted 14/02/2017 at 13:24:48
Patrick @ 4 well said. I also don't buy the paper, but Liverpool take sky shilling's and most shite fans have sky and watch it when the shite are playing.
Mike Green
35 Posted 14/02/2017 at 21:20:56
Brian (#7) – that's absolutely right about Colin Murray, a good guy I've got a lot of time for, who's also got a lot of time for us.
Stan Schofield
36 Posted 15/02/2017 at 13:19:14
Steavey@32: It's either a matter of principle or it isn't. I thought LFC banning The Sun was out of principle. If so, ban Sky. But if the money from Sky inhibits LFC banning them, then it looks like a matter of principle at a price, a principle subject to a financial convenience. Some families of victims might see this as insulting.
Steavey Buckley
37 Posted 15/02/2017 at 15:14:43
The Murdoch empire has different people in charge for different reasons. The editor of the Sun went for Brexit while the Times editor supported remain. Yet, all tabloid newspapers go in for sensational stories to grab the headlines and keep their core readers happy.

As for the Sun, did they apologise for that odious headline and compensate the victims? If they did the matter should be closed. Unless Liverpool and Everton want to cancel their TV rights with Sky.

Michael Kenrick
38 Posted 15/02/2017 at 15:38:05
The Sun has apologised numerous times, Steavey. But their crime was so heinous, and they made themselves an easy, visible and politically 'correct' target for all the hurt and the pain. Clearly no amount of apologies will change anything.
Stan Schofield
39 Posted 15/02/2017 at 15:41:01
If The Sun and it's parent empire have shown change in the light of Hillsborough, improving with respect to the issues raised in the inquiry, then yes Steavey, the matter should be closed. However, if such change is not apparent, and there is a case for LFC banning The Sun, then there is the same case for banning the parent organisation.

Either move on, accepting that the culture of The Sun and its parent empire have improved in light of the events and inquiry, or ban both. Banning only The Sun appears to be a half-way house that looks like posturing of the kind politicians do when they 'apologise' insincerely.

Stan Schofield
40 Posted 15/02/2017 at 15:45:15
In other words, what LFC does has to be sincere and substantial, and not just for the sake of 'political correctness'. The latter is insulting to folks.
Steavey Buckley
41 Posted 15/02/2017 at 15:45:55
Michael: The real villains on that tragic day were the South Yorkshire police who lied about Liverpool fans.
Peter McHugh
42 Posted 15/02/2017 at 18:45:13
Michael - the day after the Verdict every newspaper in the country ran it on their front page except for two, the Sun and the Times. I don't consider that coincidence.
Stan Schofield
43 Posted 15/02/2017 at 19:17:39
Peter, that looks to me like evidence that the culture hasn't changed the way it should, so LFC look justified in imposing a ban, but as I say I think it should be a ban on the Murdoch empire if there's a ban at all.

I realise some folks will say that can't be done realistically, because of the financial clout of Sky, but if that attitude were always taken, big corporations could get away with anything with the effective blessing of ordinary people who do have it within their powers to boycott.

For example, in addition to an LFC ban, the fact that a lot of scousers have refused to read The Sun could be supplemented by them also deciding not to use Sky, plus any other measures for boycott they could think of.

Eugene Ruane
44 Posted 15/02/2017 at 19:31:48
It's for each individual to decide of course.

For me, any 'apology' at anytime, about anything, from this putrid, vile, hate-filled rag will simply be a matter of expediency.

Imo, it was, is and always will be a comic for those begging to be deceived and lied to.

Fodder for the braying, know-nothing, Farage-style saloon-bar lawyers.

For 50 years, Britain has allowed itself to be dumbed down by Murdoch, an Australian tax-dodger who sold his soul for cash and power a long time ago.

"Fuck knowledge, here a two-bob celeb getting out of a cab."

Murdoch is the head of a 'news' organisation who fucked journalism off in favour of phone hacking, including the phone of a murdered child.

A liar and a shit-house who has helped make thick and uninformed the norm.

So the idea that it's not available in Liverpool and there's seemingly no softening of resolve on the part of the people of the city of Liverpool, gives me hope.

Tony Abrahams
45 Posted 15/02/2017 at 20:29:19
Good post, Eugene, especially the bit about fucking knowledge, which is sadly why the heartless bastards could get away with writing such bare-faced lies for so long.

Steavey (#41), I agree with you about The South Yorkshire Police, but I always thought the FA walked away from this terrible disaster without so much as a real fucking stain?

Michael Kenrick
46 Posted 15/02/2017 at 22:47:47
This is how The Telegraph (another Tory rag) reported The Sun's abject apology from the then current editor back in 2012:

The Sun 'profoundly sorry' over false fan conduct reports

It includes a claim by McKenzie that he was 'misled'. But his apology was rejected by Trevor Hicks, of the Hillsborough Families Support Group, who said it was "too little, too late" and calling him "lowlife, clever lowlife, but lowlife".

The Sun editorial rightly concludes: ''The people of Liverpool may never forgive us for the injustice we did them. All we can do is offer them an unreserved and heartfelt apology that is profound, sincere and unambiguous.''

What is done cannot be undone.

Gordon Crawford
47 Posted 15/02/2017 at 23:15:08
We should have banned them years ago. Awful, vile newspaper.

Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.

» Log in now

Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and Talking Points submissions across the site.

© ToffeeWeb