Hillsborough Police Cover Up Disgrace

I'd certainly agree with Stuart in endorsing Stefano's contribution to this debate. It is entirely correct to acknowledge the severe operational difficulties that the police faced that day.

But I don 't think those points should be made entirely at the expense of some of the more political comments that had been made earlier. Nor do I think this was necessarily Stefano's intention as indicated by his reference to politicians encouraging the earlier erection of fences.

I don't actually think Hillsborough was just about that April day in 1989. Instead I believe there was a prequel that festered throughout the 1970s and 1980 which involved governments, football clubs, football supporters, the police, the judicial process and the media. It was an amazingly complex situation where it was difficult to know what was right or wrong, what to do about it and who was doing a good job. If you weren't around at that time - or followed events solely through a media prism - it must sound entirely baffling and virtually prehistoric.

But if you were around, it would be interesting to recall how each of us felt on the day. Did you blame the Liverpool supporters that Saturday evening? Or the police? Or the ground authorities? Or were you just overwhelmed by the whole day?

Looking back there was something of a default position amongst fans - law-abiding and otherwise - to instantly blame the police whenever things went awry at a match or outside a ground. Maybe that varied between clubs, different parts of the country and age groups. It was part of "the culture". And if you can't get your head around that just think how, even these days, there's widespread distrust towards stewards. That may be largely unjustified but it's engrained and many folk aren't going to see it otherwise. Now magnify that by ten times or more and you've a sense of how the police were widely perceived in those days.

That perception may be wide of the wide of the mark but, in return, I'll always believe that some police officers had similar misconceptions about just about every football supporter and regarded them as "fair game". I was in my twenties for most of that period and at my most likely age to be stopped by the police. I remember going to the toilet at the Baseball Ground and being quizzed as to my intentions by a police officer. From my perspective walking in an orderly manner towards a urinal at a time of need was an everyday occurrence. From the officer's point of view, my wearing of an Everton scarf - in an area designated for Everton supporters - constituted some form of public order offence.

On another occasion I went on my own, and as a neutral, to see Carlisle play Chelsea. As soon as I left the station I was stopped by the police and asked what I was doing in Carlisle. I told the story as it was: I was going to watch the game at Brunton Park because it was an interesting match. Then, not being in possession of a Carlisle accent, I was told to join the Chelsea supporters to be "escorted" to the ground. When I politely repeated my assertion that I was a neutral I was invited to spend the remainder of the afternoon in a van with a police dog for company. Consequently I joined the Chelsea supporters before, funnily enough, finding another police officer and presenting my Torquay United membership card as an alibi. He let me go.

And that's how it was. There was myth, mistrust, suspicion and misunderstanding. But on the day of Hillsborough I couldn't believe that the "hooliganism" of Liverpool supporters was to blame. By this time Heysel, of course, didn't help their cause. Yet, if anything, Liverpool supporters were still more known for boisterousness rather than violence.

Nor did I go overboard in blaming the police for it never struck me as an aggressive operation against football supporters. From the outset it looked like an incident that could have occurred at any time in the previous ninety years. It was, as they once said, an "accident" just like Bolton and Ibrox. It had nearly happened so many times; now we'd been caught out. If anything my rage - and there was a lot of that - was institutional: the fences; the decision to give Liverpool fans that particular end of the ground.

And this is where it becomes awkward. Of all that Stefano wrote, I was most struck by his description of events as "chaotic". That would be entirely the case and I saw chaos on a number of times in the 1970s and 1980s. And, when people make nostalgic comparisons with the past, I guess it's the "edginess" of big-time football then that most stands out. For good or bad, it's simply not there any longer.

Now that's a curious paradox and here I note Stefano's observations about people arriving late, drunk and without tickets. That, as he says, would be a valid conclusion based on experience. It may also have been true that Liverpool's supporters were the slightly more boisterous and plentiful of the two clubs. That's why I was surprised they got the Leppings Lane end but, look at the map, and you'll see that meets the logistics of people arriving over the Pennines.

Like others, I knew the layout of the Leppings Lane end from previous visits to Hillsborough including our trip in January 1989. Yet, although I was surprised by the allocation of ends, I hadn't doubted Hillsborough's overall suitability as a FA Cup venue. This may surprise those, who weren't around in 1989, but Hillsborough had been placed on a pedestal as a venue following the rebuilding work for the 1966 World Cup. Now I suspect we can look back and say Hillsborough was 95% adequate as a semi-final venue. The 5% exception was fatal.

But to go back to Stefano's scenes of pandemonium. Yes, people would have been arriving drunk, late and without tickets. We don't know in what quantity and how much this differed from the norm. We can conclude this made policing harder rather than easier. For instance, and this is hard to imagine now that most stadiums have been redesigned, football grounds often had walls in those days which could be climbed over. Once you were in, there were no further ticket checks. This happening would have inevitably diverted police attention.

But, for me, the moot point is whether this type of supporter behaviour turned an ordinarily controllable situation to one that was completely out of control. Or was the scene already beyond redemption irrespective of drunkenness or illegal entry? That seems crucial to apportioning any blame beyond the level of a tragically "ordinary" accident.

Drink and lively behaviour certainly exacerbates situations like this but one of my theories is that any group, faced with choosing between four penned areas without much direction or information, is prone to making for the middle two. Think of your own behaviour in such situations; think of a group of well-behaved churchgoers arriving late for an event because of, say, an accident. It's not impossible to imagine something similar going wrong.

And, from the time things went wrong, it was difficult for the police - or anybody - to retrieve the situation. I guess it was far harder to make the right decisions than the wrong ones. Mistakes were made and that's not my grouse. It's the sequel.

I would urge anybody interested in this subject to go and read the Hillsborough Independent Panel's report itself. It's a long document, but there is a shorter summary. This is clearly set out and does not read like a legal text.

The report confirms that South Yorkshire Police handled the semi-final as a public order operation, rather than a crowd safety one. This is significant because it explains the approach of the police that day:

"Disclosed documents show that police officers, particularly senior officers, interpreted crowd unrest in the Leppings Lane terrace central pens as a sign of potential disorder, and consequently were slow to realise that spectators were being crushed, injured and killed." (paragraph 41)

I too was at Hillsborough in January 1989, but I was 8 years old. When I hear about football fans being "herded" into "pens", I think not of people, but of animals. I find it impossible to read the above passage without concluding that South Yorkshire police officers thought they were monitoring savages rather than observing fellow human beings.

For those who still appear to accept South Yorkshire Police's libels against Liverpool fans that day or seek to excuse the conduct of officers as the result of 'panic' in the face of an unprecedented unfolding disaster, the report has this to say:

"Immediately following identification, the intrusive questioning of bereaved relatives about the social and drinking habits of their loved ones was perceived as insensitive and irrelevant, and added to their distress"(58)

"There was no evidence to support the proposition that alcohol played any part in the genesis of the disaster and it is regrettable that those in positions of responsibility created and promoted a portrayal of drunkenness as contributing to the occurrence of the disaster and the ensuing loss of life without substantiating evidence."(72, emphasis added)

"the Panel found no evidence among the vast number of disclosed documents and many hours of video material to verify the serious allegations of exceptional levels of drunkenness, ticketlessness or violence among Liverpool fans. There was no evidence that fans had conspired to arrive late at the stadium and force entry" (153)

Moving to events after the disaster, the report is scathing. It largely excuses the role of junior officers, who it seems were pressured by their superiors and manipulated by SYP's legal team. It notes however that "Some 116 of the 164 statements identified for substantive amendment were amended to remove or alter comments unfavourable to SYP." (132)

The role of the authorities and their client media in publishing propaganda (lies and libels) in support of the police is dealt with in detail. The report says that "several police officers", the Secretary of the South Yorkshire Police Federation (the organisation representing rank-and-file officers) and a Conservative MP were the sources of stories alleging that "that Liverpool fans had assaulted and urinated on police officers resuscitating the dying, stolen from the dead and verbally sexually abused an unconscious young woman" (142)

I'm not going to go into detail about what any of that "means" with regard to points raised previously in this thread. For me they are self-evident.

You're an ignoramus for responding like that.

As usual a well considered, interesting, and balanced post by Barton Downs. There is nothing there that I would vehemently disagree with and most of it I agree with 100%. The mid to late 1980's were a horrible time to be a football fan and a time when I nearly fell out of love with the game entirely, my spectator preference being at Barnstaple Rugby Club. Attendances were declining rapidly, the television interest of big European games was no more as all English clubs were banned from Europe for many years (and we wonder why English kids fell well behind the rest of the World in football skills development), and even my local South Devon based club wanted me to carry an ID card (something we of all political persuasions have resisted in our country). Football was policed as a 'public order' problem probably because there was a big public disorder element to it with many involved in that disorder attending games but having little interest in the football. Even today respectable book outlets like W H Smith and Waterstones still openly display and promote the many books like 'The Firm' written by those who instigated and gloried in football related violence. Whilst hopefully the views in such books can be regarded as history it is a bit disappointing that major book outlets regard them as literary essentials to football fans and display them in the sports section.

Thanks for your comments, Stefano, and it's an interesting point you raise about the plethora of football-related violence books on the market. After a lull they suddenly started to mushroom and I'm astonished just how many of them are now available. And you frequently find local variations so that, here in Sheffield, there seems to be a cottage publishing industry based around the Wednesday-United rivalry. I trust none are in Alpine Joe's library. Heaven forbid.

When they first appeared I was concerned they may appeal to younger people and encourage them down a similar path. I'm still not sure who reads the bloody things - and in what quantities they sell - but I once overheard a forty-five-year-old bloke in Waterstones (in Cardiff of all places) ask for the publication date of the second volume of the A-Z of Hooligan Firms or some such title. All I could deduce was that he hadn't appeared in the first volume - A-L - and was eagerly anticipating N, P or S.

Ah yes, the Soul Crew, that would be it.

So, good grief, are they being collected for nostalgic purposes in the manner of South Brent in Old Postcards?

Hmmmm, why does that come as no surprise whatsoever?