Burnham, The Sun, And Hillsborough

Rupe’s downmarket troops at the Super Soaraway Currant Bun are a strangely sensitive bunch for a group of supposedly grown men who revel in their ability to indulge in thuggery towards others, and there is no finer example of this phenomenon than the mean-spirited and vindictive campaign being waged against Labour leadership front runner Andy Burnham right now, because he will not bend to their will.

Such is the hair-trigger of pure petulance that characterises the reactions of those in the Baby Shard bunker that when the Guardian’s Andrew Sparrow mused “Burnham has received some grotesquely negative coverage in the Sun (they seem to be waging a vendetta against him over Hillsborough)”, the paper’s managing editor Stig Abell reacted immediately - and furiously - to refute the idea.

Abell, who took a double first at Cambridge, is the supposedly more reasonable face of the Sun, especially when put alongside the unappealing convocation of thugs, bullies, spivs and other assorted chancers that make up the paper’s roster of dubiously talented hacks and pundits. His response to Sparrow was unequivocal: “What utter nonsense. We think he's a hypocrite and said so”. That, though, does not answer the question.

This was confirmed when a “Sun source” contacted the Guardian man later to protest a little too much: “he thinks I’m wrong to suggest that the Sun is pursuing a vendetta against Burnham over Hillsborough. He asks, quite reasonably: ‘What on earth have we to gain by trying to defend our terrible Hillsborough blunder now, when we’ve already apologised for it five times and are as supportive as anyone now of the new inquest and investigation?’ He also points out that the paper fully supports the new inquest”.

Well, the Sun has bugger all choice but to support the new inquests, especially because they are happening, whatever any of Creepy Uncle Rupe’s faithful retainers say or do. And they can protest all they like: the Sun disrespected the 96 when it re-hired Kelvin McFilth. Sparrow concluded “Hillsborough clearly is a factor in the mix”.

He was right. This is what Burnham said about why an Inquiry into Hillsborough did not happen earlier: “I am saying that it seems there was a decision to leave it alone. I don’t know all of the background to the decision-making, but in 1998, after the Stuart-Smith inquiry, a decision was taken to draw a line under it and to leave it in that position, [I was told] I was better not to carry on looking into it. That was the wrong decision”.

The clear inference is that The Blessed Tone did not want to upset Murdoch at a time when his Government enjoyed the Sun’s support. So it is indeed about Hillsborough, although when Sparrow concludes “it is not a straightforward matter of the Sun simply pillorying Burnham in retaliation for his Hillsborough campaigning”, he is also right. It is also about the Murdoch thugs exercising control over politicians.

Andy Burnham refuses to allow Rupe’s boot boys to exercise that control over him. They also do not want any revelations over Hillsborough to see the light of day, if it can be prevented. That is the fact of the matter, and it cannot be airily dismissed by a single dismissive Twitter comment.