Hillsborough Police Cover Up Disgrace

I'm in the middle of writing my dissertation on this very subject now, and currently delving through the Daily Mail archives

My argument is much the same as what we discussed in this thread - that the culture of tarnishing football fans for violence in the 70s and 80s led to Hillsborough and the reaction to it. Looking at articles in the aftermath of Heysel, where the Mail responded in its typically fair, level-headed and sensible way, is clear proof of this

These are from Jeff Powell's report from the day after:

'The civilised world watched in sickened disbelief last night as football played its European Cup Final in a stadium from which they were still carrying the dead, dying and critically injured. Such a hold does the cult of violence exert now over the world game that they dared not risk further mayhem and mortality by abandoning the match.'

'Never has the thirst for alcohol and the lust for violence inflicted tragedy on such a horrifying scale at a football match. Whatever the arguments about crowd segregation, police inefficiency and provocation, weak walls, barriers and fences in the Heysel Stadium it is the hooligan curse on English society which is culpable.'

'Although by far the majority of them - if not all - were crushed and trampled to death when barriers and the wall collapsed, Mrs Thatcher's Government must not be deterred from prohibiting the travelling abroad of English football supporters. Those restraining links of metal work and masonry would still be standing this morning but for the forceful aggression of Liverpool's charging fans.'

After this, the Mail's sport section launched the 'Campaign to Save Soccer'. Powell wrote a further article on it the following day (1st June 1985):

'British football, the very pulse of the people, will never be the same again after the atrocity in Brussels. Whether the national game survives at all depends on a willingness to be ushered back to its Victorian origins. Mrs Thatcher is about to lead the most profound social revolution of our sporting times. Her tools will be modern technology, the values will be those she preaches from the old-fashioned pulpit of family life, law and order. Yesterday's removal of English clubs from all European competition is only the start of a crusade with which the Prime Minister intends first to save soccer, then drive the merchants of violence out of football into retreat and isolation.

The first step will be to restrict attendances at football matches solely to card-carrying members of the home club. If the Government has its way there will be no visiting supporters from Tottenham at Arsenal, or fans travelling from Chelsea to Manchester United as from the start of next season. The repercussions for football may be enormous - not least a massive, if temporary, slump in revenue until decent family support returns to the stands and terraces - but they are transcended by the implications for society. The hooligans, the kind of sub-humans who brought death and destruction to Wednesday's European Cup Final between Liverpool and Juventus, will be flushed from the cover of the crowds and on to the streets.'

'And, crucially, football will be forced to comply. That was made clear by the end of yesterday's 75-minute briefing at 10 Downing Street with sports writers just returned from the horror in Brussels. At the unprecedented meeting, Mrs Thatcher sought eyewitness accounts of the bloodbath and recommendations for preventing future violence. She was shocked to hear how quickly the first signs of a riot developed into a massacre. And we were in agreement that evidence of poor policing, slack crowd segregation and crumbling fences and terraces could not excuse the "animal behaviour" of the English fans. The Prime Minister said: "There is a cancer that can be cured only by stripping away all the dead wood and starting again."'


I don't know where to start. So much emotional rhetoric and reactionary nonsense crammed into so few words. And the analysis from football expert Margaret Thatcher is priceless

The funny thing is, in the years after this, the Mail might attempt to claim victory - even though not all the legislation proposed here was enacted (the compulsory ID card scheme was quietly dropped after Hillsborough), club hooliganism largely died out after this point (even though it was all exaggerated to begin with - perhaps a good way of making it looking like they were "winning the fight"). But of course there was violence associated with England fans right up to the Charleroi riots during Euro 2000. It's interesting how there is that great difference between the two forms

Incidentally, the Mail's reaction to Hillsborough is quite different, suggesting the fences should come down (after their reaction to Heysel, that's quite hilarious), though there's still an article on Sir Oliver Popplewell saying there's still too much hooliganism and 'you must ask yourself if it is right that our police resources should be utilised in this way when the vast majority of the population are not interested in going to football matches. There is also the very real danger that when you have large crowds you also increase the risk of violence.' Interestingly, they did report the allegations of fans fighting police officers trying to help victims, but they reported it in a 'the police have said' way, unlike The Sun's 'The Truth' article which stated it as if it were objective fact

I suppose you can rationalise this by saying that the Mail were keen to point out the difference between this and actual violence because it suited their perspective - the little man vs the big man. Whereas in the past the Liverpool fans were the "big bullies" picking on the "poor, innocent" Juventus fans, this time they were the victims, so they would ignore any contradictions in what they've said and pretend that what they said 4 years previously had nothing to do with establishing the context in which Hillsborough played out. Even though they are being quite fair on this occasion, the lack of self-awareness is still frustrating