by Rupert Insider
On 1st December I posted an article on here entitled SUN “not sorry”. Boycott continues except on Koptalk
It was about the latest Kelvin Mackenzie admission that he was insincere when he had previously said he was sorry.
I noted that much of the day had already passed without comment from Duncan Oldham the sole owner of Koptalk. He was too busy making fart jokes about the name of the new Anfield stadium and discussing the relative merits of Pizza Hut and Dominos in his site’s Shoutbox.
It took him another whole day to figure out how he was going to handle it in one of his snarling editorials (no link provided to deny him revenue earning traffic. To see a copy go to Comments at the bottom of this page).
This was one of his opening paragraphs:
“If you make such a cock-up in life and upset so many people – especially the Hillsborough families – whether you believe you’re right or wrong, surely you simply remain silent (if you refuse to apologise) for the benefit of those who will be affected by the disaster until the day they die. The fact that he continues to speak in such a manner shows zero respect for the families and others. There are few people in society that I can think of that act in such a way.”
Oh the irony!
Apart from Kelvin MacKenzie, I can think of only one other who has refused to apologise for his attempt to break the boycott of the S*n. But maybe that’s because he really isn’t sorry – just like Mackenzie.
Whenever he tries to defend himself he always tries to imply that criticism is based on his wearing a S*n promotional hat. It’s much more serious than that. But even in that incident he lies. Usenet records show that he knew about and discussed the boycott of the S*n long before he wore its promotional hat. Yet he says again today that he didn’t know. And it was some months after he wore the hat that he brazenly published the photograph of the incident on Koptalk.
Much more serious was his unusual refusal to promote the Hillsborough Justice Campaign on his site.
Nor is this ancient history. A few months ago, he pompously lectured his readers on the merit of his site being “neutral” on the issue and how it would not feature either the Hillsborough Justice Campaign or Michael Shields campaign because they were about “politics” and the people involved difficult to deal with.
He set himself up then and previously as spokesperson for all those who don’t support the boycott of the S*n.
He did try to make a distinction at that time between the policy of his site and his own personal beliefs and practices.
But he is the sole owner and beneficiary of his site. It is a one-man site. On that site, he frequently claims “Dunk knows best” , it’s his site, he repeatedly reminds us, and anyone who does not agree with how he runs it can “fuck off”.
He slipped up again at that time when he told us that he personally takes two copies of the S*n daily. When we pointed the contradiction he tried to cover by saying – well it was not so bad because he didn’t actually pay for the two – he bribed the paper boy to give him the second copy free. And when that went down like a lead balloon he cranked up his PR and produced a video showing a mock S*n burning ceremony.
His site is the only one about LFC that features stories lifted from the S*n. This is sometimes in the form of brief BBC summaries of what the papers say, but more often takes the form of stolen stories from the S*n which he tries to pass off as original or even “exclusive” Koptalk stories.
His usual technique is to alter the S*n headline and some of the copy and then have it placed on News Now as a Koptalk story. Because his site is the only one that breaks the boycott and carries the S*n crap (even News Now does not take feeds from the S*n) he benefits from the curiosity factor
He gets thousand of hits from his S*n stories on News Now and benefits directly from the advertising revenues this brings. It also gives him an opportunity to entrap vistors into paying for membership on his site on the grounds that he will provide them with similar “exclusive news directly from Anfield”.
Even more scurrilous was his attempts to sell dirt about LFC players to the S*n especially about Robbie Fowler and Steve McMananman.
And then there are his banner headlines advertising the S*n.
He ran them for over a fortnight earlier this month before we published a report on them. He then waited for two days to measure the reaction. When more than ten LFC-related sites condemned him, he made a weak statement to the effect that he didn’t know they were there and he took them off. Its difficult to understand how a one-man site which boasts about its 24 x 7 moderation of its content failed to notice the S*n banner headlines.
Taking them off, as he did, showed he had the ability to pick and choose which of the Fastclik ads were shown, despite what he said then and now. And several contributors to this and other sites, including the owners and webmasters, published excerpts from the Fastclick contract showing that site owners have complete discretion in which ads are shown.
Anyway that was all academic because after a few days of abstinence from S*n money, he started displaying the banner ads again on Koptalk. In the face of renewed protests he said that they earned only the equivalent of 13 cents so what was all the fuss about?
In his latest defence he says the the S*n ads don’t earn any revenue at all.
He would have us believe that he, the most money-grubbing of all site owners, is apparently the only one who runs advertisements for the S*n as a public service – something he won’t do for the Hillsborough Justice Campaign.
Attached below is one of his many banner headlines for the S*n. Click on it if you want to see how big it was when it appeared on Koptalk.
It also gives you an idea how big a liar Duncan Oldham is.