Chapter 12: Behind the headlines: the origins, promotion and reproduction of unsubstantiated allegations

Chapter 12: Behind the headlines: the origins, promotion and reproduction of unsubstantiated allegations

¶Introduction 2.12.1 This chapter responds to bereaved families' and survivors' concerns to demonstrate how the documents disclosed to the Panel add to public understanding of the background to, and sources of, the initial media coverage. The Panel has also researched the documents to trace how unproven and unsubstantiated allegations, rejected by Lord Justice Taylor, persisted after the publication of his Interim Report and gained wide public acceptance. 2.12.2 As it became increasingly evident that people were trapped, dying and injured in the central pens, Chief Superintendent David Duckenfield told Football Association (FA) representatives that Liverpool fans had broken into the stadium and rushed down the tunnel into the packed central pens causing the fatal crush. 2.12.3 His untruthful allegation was broadcast internationally, establishing the immediate portrayal of the unfolding disaster as a further example of soccer-related crowd violence. Indeed, as the previous chapters have shown, the immediate South Yorkshire Police (SYP) reaction was to view through a lens of hooliganism the fans attempting to escape the fatal crush. 2.12.4 The media coverage on the evening of the disaster, and in the morning press on Sunday 16 April, was a confused mix of allegation and counter-allegation alongside controversial pictures of fans' faces, distorted and lifeless, pressed against the perimeter fence while others lay motionless on the pitch. 2.12.5 Jacques Georges, President of UEFA (European football's governing body), condemned Liverpool fans as 'beasts'. Survivors recounted a different story, emphasising overcrowding, lack of stewarding and inadequate emergency response. 2.12.6 On 18 and 19 April, however, more serious allegations against Liverpool fans were made from seemingly reliable sources, first in Sheffield newspapers and then in the nationals. Unnamed sources, supported by the South Yorkshire Police Federation Secretary, Police Constable Paul Middup, and a local Conservative MP, Irvine Patnick, claimed that many Liverpool fans had deliberately arrived late at the stadium. 2.12.7 They were portrayed as predominantly ticketless, drunk, aggressive and determined to force entry. In the throes of the disaster it was alleged that they had assaulted police officers, urinated on officers and the dying, stolen from the dead and verbally sexually abused a lifeless young woman.

¶
• Chapter 12 Behind the headlines: the origins, promotion and reproduction of unsubstantiated allegations — 341

342

¶2.12.8 While these allegations were found to be unsubstantiated by the Taylor Inquiry and the reporting was criticised subsequently by the Press Council, the allegations persisted throughout the inquiries and investigations.

¶2.12.9 Further, and much to the bereaved families' and survivors' dismay, the allegations remained prominent and have since been repeated as factually accurate in academic texts, broadcast documentaries, political debate and popular discourse, including fiction writing.

¶Reporting the unfolding disaster 2.12.10 In his Interim Report LJ Taylor recorded that at approximately 3.15pm Graham Kelly, the FA's Chief Executive, and Graham Mackrell, the Sheffield Wednesday Football Club Secretary, spoke to C/Supt Duckenfield in the Police Control Box. They were told that there were deaths and the match would be abandoned; a 'gate had been forced and there had been an inrush of Liverpool supporters'.1 Pointing to Gate C on a Control Box monitor he stated: 'That's the gate that's been forced: there's been an inrush'.

¶2.12.11 Soon after, Mr Kelly presented this as the police version of events on radio. At 3.40pm BBC's Alan Green reported live from Hillsborough that there were 'unconfirmed reports that a door was broken down at the end that was holding Liverpool supporters'.2

¶2.12.12 At approximately 4.30pm Mr Green reported on information obtained from Mr Mackrell, who had spoken to 'the police officer in charge'. Mr Green stated that 'at ten to three there was a surge of fans at the Leppings Lane end of the ground ... the surge composed of about 500 Liverpool fans and the police say that a gate was forced and that led to a crush in the terracing area – well under capacity I'm told, there was still plenty of room inside that area'.3

¶2.12.13 Later in the bulletin it was stated that the gates had been 'broken down' following the arrival of 'large numbers of ticketless fans'.

¶2.12.14 By early evening the allegations had consolidated. BBC Radio 4 reported that it was 'clear' that many fans had no tickets and had entered through an exit gate: 'One report says the gate was kicked down another that it was opened by ground staff'.4

¶2.12.15 Later in the evening, however, the SYP Chief Constable, Peter Wright, stated that the gate had been opened on the instruction of a police officer to relieve the crush outside the stadium caused by the late arrival of thousands of Liverpool fans, many without tickets.5

¶The immediate aftermath 2.12.16 The following morning's newspapers presented contrasting accounts. The theme of an aggressive, late-arriving crowd determined to gain entry persisted, with the Sunday Mirror, for example, reporting that between three and four thousand 'Liverpool fans pushed seemingly uncontrolled into Hillsborough'.6

1. The Rt Hon Lord Justice Taylor The Hillsborough Stadium Disaster, 15 April 1989, Interim Report. Cm 765, London:

¶Her Majesty's Stationery Office, p17. 2. 'Sport on Two', BBC Radio, 15 April 1989. 3. 'Sport on Two', BBC Radio, 15 April 1989. 4. 6pm News, BBC Radio 4, 15 April 1989. 5. Special News Report, 9pm, Radio Merseyside, 15 April 1989. 6. Sunday Mirror, 16 April 1989, PRE000000420001, p1.

343

¶2.12.17 The Observer attributed the three to four thousand estimate to CC Wright, stating that their 'late arrival' had 'threatened danger to life'.7 It also noted Mr Mackrell's comment that the disaster had been caused by a 'surge' as Liverpool fans arrived late.

¶2.12.18 On Monday 17 April while press coverage remained mixed, the assumed culpability of Liverpool fans was central to many reports. The Sheffield Star described a 'crazed surge' of Liverpool fans. It claimed that as a consequence 'up to 40 people died in the tunnel, the rest trampled underfoot'. Some fans were the 'worse for drink, others without tickets' had 'raced to the stadium'.8

¶2.12.19 The Yorkshire Post reported that 'thousands of latecomers tried to force their way into the ground' having set off a 'fatal charge'.9 The Manchester Evening News alleged that fans, 'foolishly late getting to the game and furious at the prospect of missing the start, kicked and hammered on the steel [exit] gates'.10

¶2.12.20 Thus gates were opened and the 'Anfield Army charged onto the terrace behind the goal, many without tickets'. Late arrival, forced entry, ticketless fans, drunkenness and a 'charge' into the stadium were allegations common to most national and regional newspapers.

¶2.12.21 One of the earliest comment articles was written by the Evening Standard's Peter McKay who concluded that the 'catastrophe was caused first and foremost by violent enthusiasm for soccer, in this case the tribal passions of Liverpool supporters' who 'literally killed themselves and others to be at the game'.11

¶2.12.22 As the focus on fans' behaviour consolidated, Jacques Georges, the UEFA President, stated:

¶One can talk of people's frenzy to enter the stadium come what may, whatever the risk to the lives of others ... One had the impression that they were beasts waiting to charge into the arena.12

¶2.12.23 An alternative view was put forward by Simon Barnes, writing in The Times. His comment article, 'Why the dead are the victims of contempt', was strongly critical of the state of football. 'Why make the football grounds pleasant? Cram them in, take as much money as you dare to charge, that's the way. Spend a million quid on a player, spend the legal minimum on ground safety and spend next to nothing on comfort'.13

¶2.12.24 On Tuesday 18 April, writing in the Liverpool Daily Post, John Williams noted that 'the gatecrashers wreaked their fatal havoc', their 'uncontrolled fanaticism and mass hysteria ... literally squeezed the life out of men, women and children'.14 It was 'yobbism at its most base' as 'Scouse killed Scouse for no better reason than 22 men were kicking a ball'.

7. The Observer, 16 April 1989. 8. Sheffield Star, 17 April 1989, PRE000000020001, p1. 9. Yorkshire Post, 17 April 1989. 10. Manchester Evening News, 17 April 1989. 11. Evening Standard, 17 April 1989. 12. Reported in Liverpool Echo, 17 April 1989. 13. The Times, 17 April 1989, PRE000000480001, p16. 14. Liverpool Daily Post, 18 April 1989.

344

¶2.12.25 Other reports, primarily from fans' eye-witness accounts, challenged the dominant themes that directed responsibility towards Liverpool fans. These alternative accounts focused on the lack of crowd management in the approach to the stadium, the bottleneck at the turnstiles, the absence of stewarding once Gate C was opened and the failure to direct the incoming crowd once inside the stadium. They also denied that there was an exceptional level of drunkenness or that fans had rushed the turnstiles or the terrace.

¶2.12.26 PC Middup, Secretary of the South Yorkshire branch of the Police Federation, was unequivocal about where responsibility lay. He was reported as stating: 'I am sick of hearing how good the crowd were ... They were arriving tanked up on drink and the situation faced by the officers trying to control them was quite simply terrifying'.15 The Sun carried allegations that ticketless fans had arrived and had caused the disaster 'either by forcing their way in or by blackmailing the police into opening the gates'.16

¶'The Truth' 2.12.27 Also on 18 April a more sinister story emerged. The Sheffield Star published allegations that Liverpool fans had attacked police officers and rescue workers and had stolen from the dead.17

¶2.12.28 The front page headline was 'Fans in Drunken Attacks on Police: Ticketless thugs staged crush to gain entry'. The police, it claimed, were 'piecing together' a 'sickening story' focusing on how 'yobs' had 'attacked an ambulance man, threatened firemen and punched and urinated on policemen as they gave the kiss of life to stricken victims'.18 The report also quoted PC Middup. Along with Irvine Patnick, Conservative MP for Sheffield Hallam, PC Middup reiterated allegations of drunkenness on BBC News.19

¶2.12.29 Later in the evening of 18 April, Mr Patnick echoed the allegations made earlier in the day in the Sheffield Star: 'I was speaking to those officers [who] said they had been trying to save lives, that they'd been attacked by some of the fans, they'd been kicked and punched even when giving mouth-to mouth resuscitation and people were urinating on them from the balcony above where they were working'.20

¶2.12.30 The following morning most newspapers carried the story: 'Dead Fans Robbed by Drunk Fans';21 'They were drunk and violent and their actions were vile';22 'Police Accuse Drunken Fans: Police saw "sick spectacle of pilfering from the dying'' ';23 'Fury as police claim fans robbed victims';24 'Fans 'made sex jibes at body';25 'Police tell MP of attacks on them as they helped injured'.26

15. Reported in Daily Mail, 18 April 1989, PRE000000430001, p3. 16. The Sun, 18 April 1989, PRE000000380001, p6. 17. Sheffield Star, 18 April 1989, PRE000000030001, p7. 18. The Evening Standard ran a similar story, headlined 'Police attack the "vile" fans', 18 April 1989, YAS000003090001, p97. 19. BBC News, 9pm, 18 April 1989. 20. News at Ten, ITN, 10pm, 18 April 1989. 21. Daily Star, 19 April 1989. 22. Daily Mail, 19 April 1989, PRE000000610001. 23. Daily Express, 19 April 1989, PRE000000560001, p1. 24. Daily Mirror, 19 April 1989, PRE000000400001, p2. 25. Sheffield Star, 19 April 1989, PRE000000010001, p3. 26. Daily Telegraph, 19 April 1989.

345

¶2.12.31 The greatest prominence given to the story was in The Sun whose editor, Kelvin MacKenzie, cleared the front page and under the banner headline 'THE TRUTH' published three bullet points: 'Some fans picked pockets of victims; Some fans urinated on the brave cops; Some fans beat up PC giving life kiss'.27

¶2.12.32 The Sun's coverage was unequivocal:

¶Drunken Liverpool fans viciously attacked rescue workers as they tried to revive victims of the Hillsborough soccer disaster, it was revealed last night.

¶Police officers, firemen and ambulance crew were punched, kicked and urinated upon by a hooligan element in the crowd.

¶Some thugs rifled the pockets of injured fans as they were stretched out unconscious on the pitch.

¶In one shameful episode a gang of Liverpool fans noticed that the blouse of a girl trampled to death had risen above her breasts. As a policeman struggled in vain to revive her, the mob jeered: 'Throw her up here and we will **** her' ...

¶One furious policeman who witnessed the disaster on Saturday stormed: 'To paint all the Liverpool fans lily-whites is wrong.

¶'As we struggled in appalling conditions to save lives, fans standing further up the terrace were openly urinating on us and the bodies of the dead.'28

¶2.12.33 According to a 'high ranking police officer', the 'fans were just acting like animals. My men faced a double hell – the disaster and the fury of the fans who attacked us'.

¶The Sun's response 2.12.34 The Sun's publication was immediately condemned at many levels, particularly on Merseyside. Bereaved families and survivors wrote letters to the newspaper challenging the veracity of the story and its presentation as the definitive version of events. Within days the Managing Editor, William Newman, replied to bereaved families.29 His letter was neither personalised nor signed.

¶2.12.35 Mr Newman stated that the newspaper had 'received many letters from Liverpool regarding our follow up story to the Hillsborough tragedy'. He continued:

¶We are sorry that, possibly clouded by grief, many have not understood that it is

¶The Sun's duty as a newspaper to publish information, however hurtful and unpalatable it may be at the time.

¶On reflection, we accept the way in which the article was displayed could have given cause for offence. For that we apologise. For the substance we do not.

¶We cannot possibly apologise for facts and to do so would be an abdication of our responsibility to a wider public beyond the city of Liverpool. If the price of a free press is a boycott of our newspaper, then it is a price we will have to pay.

27. The Sun, 19 April 1989, PRE000000340001, pp1-2. 28. The Sun, 19 April 1989, PRE000000340001, pp1-2. 29. Unsigned letter from William Newman, no addressee, no reference, dated 28 April 1989, NGN000000090001, p1.

346

¶2.12.36 Mr Newman stated that 'not for the first time' The Sun had been 'singled out' and he referred to 'identical reports' in three other newspapers. Claiming the moral high ground he stated that 'only by revealing the full truth ... we can try to make sure that such a terrible tragedy never happens again' thus ensuring that '95 innocent men women and children will not have died in vain'.

¶2.12.37 He offered 'heartfelt sympathy' to the bereaved and the injured, noting that the Press Council was investigating newspaper coverage of Hillsborough and The Sun would 'accept and publish their findings'.

¶2.12.38 Mr Newman's letter arrived at the homes of the bereaved as funerals were being arranged. It defended the 'substance' of the published allegations as factual, patronised the judgement of the bereaved as 'clouded by grief' and presented the newspaper as a truth seeker with a public interest 'responsibility ... beyond the city of Liverpool'. There was no apology other than a dismissive comment that the presentation of the story could have caused offence.

¶2.12.39 On Tuesday 9 May 1989 The Sun published a brief commentary from its Ombudsman, Ken Donlan, under the heading 'Ombudsman raps The Sun'.30 This followed what it claimed had been 'a major inquiry into the coverage of the Hillsborough disaster after complaints from readers'.

¶2.12.40 Mr Donlan had inquired into the 'circumstances of the reporting and presentation of the story', finding against its presentation. His report stated:

¶The Editor is on record as saying that the newspaper had a duty to publish the facts about supporters' misbehaviour, no matter how hurtful and unpalatable at the time.

¶This is accepted, but it must be pointed out that the report – similar material appeared in other papers – did not justify the headline The Truth. Allegations can never be projected as facts. It is for Lord Justice Taylor's inquiry to examine the evidence and decide what happened at Hillsborough.

¶It should not have been published in the form that it appeared.

¶2.12.41 Mr Donlan's report, while accepting the 'form' of the coverage and challenging the use of 'The Truth' banner headline, did not comment on the factual accuracy of the allegations, nor their origins. Mr Newman sent a photocopy of its Ombudsman's adjudication as published in the newspaper to the Press Council.31

¶The Press Council 2.12.42 The 36th Annual Report of the Press Council, The Press and the People, provided a seven-page review of coverage of the disaster under the broad heading 'Pictures of Grief and Tragedy'.32

¶2.12.43 This followed a 'general inquiry into the photographic coverage of the tragedy in the press' derived from '349 written complaints from a total of 3651 signatories' naming '35 newspapers', national and regional. There were also complaints from MPs and five organisations including the FA and Liverpool City Council. 30. The Sun 'Ombudsman raps The Sun', 9 May 1989, p2. 31. Letter from William Newman, Managing Editor, The Sun, to Raymond Swingler, Assistant Director, The Press Council,

¶9 May 1989, NGN000000040001, p1. 32. The Press and the People, 36th Annual Report of the Press Council, London: The Press Council, 1989,

¶PCC000000010001, p3.

347

¶2.12.44 The Press Council extended the scope of its inquiry to 'embrace all press coverage', responding particularly to the coverage in The Sun. Editors were informed of the complaint to solicit replies. The Press Council 'accept[ed] the assurance of many editors that they considered carefully how far it was right to publish photographs that might serve the public interest ... but would also distress survivors and the families and friends of those who were killed and were likely to be offensive to other readers'. In most cases, however, 'editors were justified in publishing' the photographs.

¶2.12.45 While acknowledging that many fans compressed against the perimeter fence 'were recognisable and in attitudes of distress', and there was 'no means of telling how many of those shown died', the publication of these photographs was 'justifiable' on the basis that 'serious public interest was served by their publication ... despite the added distress it would cause'.

¶2.12.46 Photographs that focused on 'a single individual or a very small group crushed against the fence' were an 'intrusion into personal agony and grief too gross to be justifiable'. There was no justification 'for publishing individual pictures of men or women who were known or thought to be dead or dying'.

¶2.12.47 In a section of the report entitled 'On TRUTH' the Press Council addressed the multiple complaints received about the 19 April edition of The Sun. It found the coverage 'generally one-sided, offering no counter to the allegations it included'. It was 'unbalanced and its general effect misleading'.

¶2.12.48 The front page, 'THE TRUTH was insensitive, provocative and unwarranted. The Sun's own ombudsman declared that the article should not have been published in the form in which it appeared'. The Press Council condemned its publication.

¶2.12.49 Given The Sun's unwavering defence of the facts on which its 'Truth' edition relied, and the comparable coverage in other newspapers, the Panel sought access to documents that would add to public understanding of the origins and presentation of the severe, generalised allegations made against Liverpool fans.

¶The source of the story 2.12.50 Documents disclosed to the Panel show that on the morning of 18 April 1989 White's News Agency filed a story entitled 'Hillsborough'.33 It stated: 'Angry police hit back ... at Liverpool fans who hampered life saving attempts after the Hillsborough horror'.

¶2.12.51 SYP officers had been 'stung by savage criticism' and by the representation of Liverpool fans as 'blameless'.

¶2.12.52 It continued: 'The shocked bobbies revealed how they were kicked and punched as they gave victims the kiss of life. And others were horrified to see Liverpool fans urinating on policemen and victims as they fought to haul them out of the killer crush'.

¶2.12.53 The story quoted a 'senior officer who was in the battle to save lives':

¶We are as sorry and shocked as anyone about these tragic deaths but to paint all the

¶Liverpool fans as lilly whites [sic] is wrong. As we struggled in appalling conditions to save lives, fans standing up the terrace were openly urinating on us and the bodies of the dead. As policemen on the pitch tried to save lives they were hampered by other

¶Liverpool fans running and kicking and punching them. 33. Document: 'Hillsborough', 'Pocket 1' and 'Patnick 1', 18 April 1989, NGN000000010001, p1.

348

¶2.12.54 White's News Agency quoted another officer whose colleague was unable to resuscitate a young fan. He stated that when he stopped, 'Immediately he was attacked by his mate who threw punches'. The officer 'did not retaliate although he was dazed', but 'simply went on to help the next victim'. As 'another officer gave the kiss of life and heart massage he was abused and then given a savage kick by another lout'.

¶2.12.55 A third officer stated:

¶Even when it became apparent we were dealing with a tragic situation police were harassed as they tried to get on with the job of saving lives and helping victims. We know a lot of questions will be asked about the opening of the gates – a decision taken because it was feared lives were at risk outside the ground. The fact remains that had Liverpool fans entered the ground in an orderly and civilised manner the crushing that led to the deaths would not have happened.

¶2.12.56 The officer also stated that a police request to delay the kick-off to 'allow fans to enter the ground' had been refused because 'the players had already come out so the match had to start on time. A lot of us felt that simply wasn't good enough'.

¶2.12.57 On the afternoon of 18 April White's circulated a further story quoting a police officer who claimed that before bodies were taken to the gymnasium their pockets were picked by other fans:

¶There was a lot of pilfering going on while the bid to save lives was taking place.

¶Personal possessions were missing as well as cash and other articles.

¶People were picking up coins which had fallen from victim's [sic] pockets as they lay on the floor. It was a sickening spectacle.

¶2.12.58 A 'high ranking officer' was reported as stating that some fans 'were like animals, they were drunk and violent and their actions were vile'. Another 'senior policeman' claimed that the police could not criticise fans' behaviour 'for fear of being accused of being insensitive'. He continued: 'the fact is, some of my officers went through a double hell – a disaster and the fury of drunken fans impeding rescue attempts'.

¶2.12.59 According to the filed story, South Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance Service (SYMAS) Chief Ambulance Officer Albert ('Don') Page34 'revealed one ambulanceman needed hospital treatment after being attacked as he treated an injured fan' while other ambulancemen were occupied with fans injured from fighting.

¶2.12.60 The statement noted earlier, made by PC Middup, the Police Federation Secretary for SYP, also originated with White's:

¶I am sick of hearing how good the crowd were. Some arrived tanked up and the situation faced by officers trying to control them was terrifying. People were diving under the bellies of the police horses and between their legs and the only people who would do that are either mental or have been drinking heavily.

¶2.12.61 PC Middup conceded that 'it was a small element who behaved so badly'.

34. CAO Albert Page was also known as Don.

349

¶2.12.62 In a section entitled 'Patnick 1' White's noted that Irvine Patnick 'backed up police claims that Liverpool fans attacked and urinated on them as they tended to the injured and dying'. Mr Patnick was quoted as saying:

¶I spoke to many policemen in the makeshift mortuary afterwards. They told me they were hampered, harassed, punched, kicked and urinated on by Liverpool fans.

¶2.12.63 Mr Patnick claimed he had 'kept quiet about this' because he 'did not want to inflame a delicate situation'. He continued:

¶But it is a fact that these are the stories they told me and they had no reason to lie.

¶I saw the bruising on their bodies and the state they were in and there is no doubt in my mind it is true. All this happened to them and yet they carried on doing their job trying to save lives and now they are being blamed. One important question that must be answered is what part alcohol played in this whole tragic business.

¶2.12.64 These were the statements underpinning the coverage of 18 and 19 April, including The Sun's coverage that resulted in so much opprobrium.

¶What do the disclosed documents reveal about the basis for these allegations? 2.12.65 In scrutinising disclosed documents the Panel sought evidence that would corroborate these allegations. As discussed in detail in Chapter 5 there was no evidence of excessive or unusual levels of alcohol consumption by fans. The objective evidence available, in fact, indicates pre-match drinking that was not out of the ordinary. As with most situations at sporting or leisure events, there were exceptions, but there is no support for the notion that alcohol had an undue influence on crowd behaviour or contributed to the disaster. This is consistent with LJ Taylor's findings in his Interim Report in August 1989.

¶2.12.66 The documents considered in Chapter 4 regarding fans' behaviour in the immediate aftermath of the disaster provide a few examples of inappropriate behaviour, including hostility directed towards police and in some cases allegations of physical assault as people 'tended to take out their anger and frustration on those in uniform'.35

¶2.12.67 It is clear, however, from eye-witness accounts that this was prompted both by anger at the delay in official recognition of, and reaction to, the plight of those trapped in the pens and by a desperate desire to rescue and treat seriously injured and unconscious friends and relatives. It is also clear from eye-witness accounts and from the video footage of the aftermath that such incidents were exceptional.

¶2.12.68 Dr John Ashton, a Liverpool fan who took part in the rescue, stated:

¶During this whole period the public were fantastic, although shocked and angry. On one occasion at the end a group of young men came past the dead and one of them expressed his anger at police who were standing there. I told him to 'cool it', that it was not helpful, and he stopped. I saw no other episodes like this at all, although there was a general atmosphere of anger at what had been happening. I remember thinking how restrained everybody was.36

35. Statement of Station Officer Paul Eason, 5 May 1989, YAS000001490001, p5. 36. Statement of Dr John Ashton, 19 April 1989, SYP000096240001, p28.

350

¶2.12.69 From the documents disclosed to the Panel there is no evidence to support any of the other allegations. There were no other accounts of stealing from the dead.

¶2.12.70 An eye-witness account of a police horse lifted from the ground was clear that this occurred as fans were forced beneath the horse as a result of severe congestion and excessive pressure outside the stadium.

¶2.12.71 Several statements referred to fans urinating at the rear of the stands rather than leaving via the stairs to use the toilets.37 One police officer alleged that fans had deliberately urinated on police officers.38

¶2.12.72 A most disturbing and repeated allegation, made by a police inspector, concerned verbal abuse of a sexual nature directed at an unconscious young woman by a Liverpool fan. Whatever the accuracy of the officer's statement, and from the documents provided to the Panel there is no verification of this serious allegation, the publicity it received was extensive and presented as an example of the bad behaviour of Liverpool fans in general.

¶2.12.73 With the exception of isolated examples of anger, frustration and inappropriate behaviour in the immediate aftermath the statements disclosed to the Panel do not substantiate the serious allegations published in the press and attributed to police spokespeople, most of which relied on hearsay.

¶The interventions of Irvine Patnick MP 2.12.74 Within five days of the disaster, and having featured extensively in local and national media coverage, Irvine Patnick wrote to LJ Taylor enclosing 'rough notes'. He wrote that it had become 'clear' to him 'that matters reported to me' on the evening of 15 April, and in the days that followed, 'would have to be considered' by the Judge.39 He had 'resisted the temptation to edit and redraft my notes as I hope you will agree that they may be more valuable as an almost instant recollection'.

¶2.12.75 Given that the media coverage had included controversial comments attributed to Mr Patnick, he 'emphasis[ed] that I myself did not sensationalise what I was told'. That had come, 'as with so many other bad things, from the media'.

¶2.12.76 The four pages of recollections described how he became aware of the disaster via television coverage; it was 'compulsive viewing'. He went to the Royal Hallamshire Hospital and from there drove to Hammerton Road Police Station.

¶2.12.77 He diverted to the Boys' Club where the bereaved and survivors were gathered. From there he visited the police station and drove to the stadium, only to find that the Chairman of Sheffield Wednesday Football Club had left.

¶2.12.78 He was interviewed by Radio Sheffield, discovering that Colin Moynihan, the Minister for Sport, was flying to Sheffield by helicopter. He drove to SYP headquarters and following a brief discussion with Deputy Chief Constable Peter Hayes he was interviewed by Radio Hallam and went to the SYP Transport Department where the Minister was landing.

37. For example, statement of a Hillsborough Steward, quoted at SYP000046060001, p28. 38. Statement of Police Constable Ball, SYP000082890001, p6. 39. Letter from Irvine Patnick MP to The Rt Hon Lord Justice Taylor, 'Hillsborough Stadium Disaster 15th April 1989',

351

¶2.12.79 Here Mr Patnick met 'Chief Superintendent Duckworth' who 'asked if I would go and speak with the officers that had been on duty at the stadium' as they were 'down in the dumps'. Entering the building, 'it was very quiet and my reception I would describe as "frosty"'.

¶2.12.80 While he was talking with an off-duty Sergeant whom he knew, another officer approached and asked if he wanted 'to know the truth'. Mr Patnick recalled then being told the following:

¶'Some of the supporters were pissed out of their minds. They were pissing on us while we were pulling the dead and injured out [sic] they were swearing at us kicking and punching us and hampering our work'. One seated showed me the marks of the kicks on his left trouser leg and the marks on his skin. Another one informed how the crowd had lifted up a Police horse how the fans had been crawling beneath the horses ...

¶One said, 'I picked up a girl she was dead she was in my arms her blouse was torn and she had no bra on her breasts were exposed [sic] when someone shouted at me

¶"throw her over here we'll fuck her". It was booze that did it – you speak up for us tell them in Parliament what happened'.

¶2.12.81 Witnessing this exchange 'senior officers' advised Mr Patnick to take what he had heard 'with a pinch of salt'.

¶2.12.82 His account recorded that by Monday 17 April he was being telephoned by the press 'with "stories" they had heard and on Tuesday 18th April the media were on to the story of looting, violence and drink'. He was asked if he could confirm such allegations. He claimed he did 'not speak to some newspapers' but they published 'a garbled tale'.

¶2.12.83 On Wednesday 19 April, the day The Sun published its controversial edition 'The Truth', Graham Boon of White's News Agency asked if Mr Patnick 'could confirm the police had found dead bodies outside the ground'. He had replied that he could not. In the course of the conversation he asked Mr Boon 'why after a telephone conversation' with another White's reporter, Peter Moxon, 'comments had been attributed' to him 'the day before which I had not made'. He claimed that 'Mr Boon had apologised', adding that 'it had been garbled by others that had used it'.

¶2.12.84 In another letter disclosed to the Panel and written to Mr Boon four days after the telephone conversation, Mr Patnick noted that the call had been made 'regarding allegations that dead people had been discovered outside the Leppings Lane entrance' of the stadium.40

¶2.12.85 In the letter he 'pointed out that press reports which must have come from your colleague Peter Moxon the day before stated I had spoken to police officers in the mortuary'. He continued: 'You agreed that the story had been mixed up and my comments had been re-arranged but not at your end'. This suggested that the newspapers had altered the facts.

¶2.12.86 He claimed he had told Mr Moxon that he 'had visited the mortuary and was shocked, but had not spoken to the police officers there'. Finally, having read The Sun's coverage which had quoted him, he did 'not recollect naming Liverpool fans but [had] said "people"'.

40. Letter from Irvine Patnick MP to Graham Boon, White's News Agency, 23 April 1989, SYP000046060001, p24.

352

¶2.12.87 In his submission to LJ Taylor, Mr Patnick commented that 'after being sickened by the "myths" that had sprung up about the disaster' he had 'repeated [to the media] the story' told to him by police officers on the night of the disaster.41 He had believed their allegations about the behaviour of Liverpool fans. A few days later Mr Patnick wrote again to LJ Taylor stating: 'After reading again my recollections ... I wish to point out the comments to "take with a pinch of salt" was [sic] my way of summing up the gist of the Senior Officers' comments'.42

¶White's News Agency and the 'authenticity' of the story 2.12.88 In the wake of public outrage that followed the publication of the allegations and the lack of substantiating evidence from independent witnesses or CCTV coverage, White's News Agency was under considerable pressure to confirm its sources. White's detailed the background in a memorandum to the Evening Standard, one of the first newspapers to break the story.43

¶2.12.89 It stated that '[a]ll the allegations in the stories we filed were made, unsolicited, by ranking officers in the South Yorkshire force to three different experienced senior journalists who are partners in this agency'. The officers 'had been on duty at Hillsborough'.

¶2.12.90 However, the 'first claims of bad behaviour came on the night of Saturday April 15th a few hours after the tragedy when one reporter met by chance a senior police officer he has known for many years':

¶Without prompting the officer told him he had been punched and urinated on as he tried to save a dying victim at Hillsborough. The following day there was another chance meeting with [sic] second officer who again without prompting said he had seen some fans behaving badly including attacking police and urinating on officers.

¶2.12.91 White's noted: 'At this stage we felt it was not enough confirmation to send a story making such serious claims'. This changed on Monday 17 April when 'another reporter met a third officer who volunteered information and reiterated similar stories saying he had seen police attacked and had been told of fans urinating down the terraces as police pulled away the dead and injured'. The third interview gave White's corroboration and confidence to file the initial story on the morning of 18 April.

¶2.12.92 Later in the day, however, 'a third reporter met a fourth officer he has known for many years who repeated the allegations and added that Liverpool supporters had been stealing from the dead'.

¶2.12.93 This officer 'had not seen it [stealing] personally' yet 'despite fingertip searches of the terracing a lot of personal property belonging to the dead was missing and other officers had told him of pilfering'. Consequently White's filed the further details along with the comment from the SYMAS Chief Ambulance Officer.

41. Letter from Irvine Patnick MP to The Rt Hon Lord Justice Taylor, 'Hillsborough Stadium Disaster 15th April 1989',

¶20 April 1989, HOM000016460001, pp1-5. 42. Letter from Irvine Patnick MP to The Rt Hon Lord Justice Taylor, '15th April 1989 Hillsborough Stadium Disaster',

353

¶2.12.94 The memorandum continued:

¶Further quotes were sent in a later story after we spoke to the Tory MP for Sheffield

¶Hallam Irvine Patnick. He said he had spoken to police officers on Saturday night who said they had been attacked and urinated on. He had not volunteered the information previously because he felt it would inflame a very sensitive situation.

¶2.12.95 White's stated that they had 'watered down' allegations 'which included a report to us that Liverpool fans, seeing the uncovered breasts of a dead girl shouted "pass her over here and we'll f... [sic] her" '.The news agency concluded that they 'felt we did as much as we could to check the authenticity of the story in the time available and reported faithfully what we were told'.

¶The Police Federation: 'Putting our side of the trauma over to the press and media' 2.12.96 On the morning The Sun and other newspapers published the serious allegations against Liverpool fans members of the SYP branch of the Police Federation met in a Sheffield restaurant.44 2.12.97 The branch Secretary, PC Middup, addressed the meeting stating that the 'Chief Constable had been most grateful for the support we had given as he had been in a difficult position' and 'it was a measure of the immense esteem in which the Chief Constable held this Board' that he would be joining the meeting later in the morning. 2.12.98 As spokesperson PC Middup 'wanted to tell the J.B.B. members and the people he represented what he had tried to do, putting our side of the trauma over to the press and media'. 2.12.99 He presented a chronology of events from 6.15pm on Saturday 15 April when he first became aware of the disaster. He had attended a press briefing at 7pm with the Chief Constable and then visited the stadium. He found officers 'in a terribly distressed state'. The minutes recorded:

¶Some officers were injured and some stories were told to the Secretary [Middup] which were horrific. One story being that a policewoman who was giving resuscitation was urinated on. Other police officers were verbally abused and had stuff thrown at them and spat on. Some officers saw people picking coins up from the floor which had obviously come from the victims. Mr Middup said that was how it was portrayed to him that night by individuals under tremendous strain. 2.12.100 PC Middup had responded to the 'immense' interest from the media. He had been 'proud to put the members' case forward' and had received a first abusive call the previous night. Another officer noted that while PC Middup had responded, 'senior officers had been lacking and abysmal, as if they had something to hide'. 2.12.101 The meeting discussed officers' reaction to negative media coverage, to the stress they had been under and the offer of counselling. PC Middup 'stated that the Chief Constable had said the truth could not come from him but had given the Secretary a totally free hand and supported him', as had many senior officers.

44. Detailed minutes, dated 27 April 1989, of a Special Joint Branch Board Meeting, Police Federation, South Yorkshire

¶Police, held at the 'Pickwick' Restaurant, High Green, Sheffield, 10am, 19 April 1989, TPF000000010001, pp1-12.

354

¶2.12.102 In recounting the day's events a police officer (name redacted) reported that fans had been arrested 'early on Saturday morning' having thrown 'empty whisky bottles out of their vans'. He claimed 'some of the fans had been drunk from early morning when they arrived and some had been at Midland station all night'.

¶Mr [name redacted] said he had taken some of the brunt of wrath, as he had been abused and kicked by Liverpool supporters. The supporters had been spitting in officers' faces ... he did not react he just took it. This had been after, when the bodies were removed and when the fans were coming out.

¶Mr [name redacted] stated that the policewoman who had been urinated on had supposedly rung the 'Star', saying this welfare aspect had not been adequate and as a result of this she was going to be interviewed. Unfortunately, no-one knew who she was.

¶2.12.103 Another officer (name redacted) stated that while he was 'attending to the injured people, he was verbally abused and the supporters were shouting, "Murderers"'. Mr (name redacted) was not at Hillsborough but had discussed the disaster with his shift 'who had been right in the thick of it, getting people off the terraces, giving the kiss of life and whilst the officers were carrying this out, they were kicked and punched'. The officers had alleged that fans 'even ripped the cover off one of the victim's [sic] faces and shouted an obscenity at the dead person'.

¶2.12.104 Inspector Gordon Sykes stated that two quotes published in newspapers were from him. The first was 'about the police horses and the supporters diving underneath the bellies and through the legs of horses'. The second was 'when supporters were called into the Ground and were at the back of the terracing, then they all got booted out at the back'.

¶Mr Sykes said that is when he was carrying a young girl out who was virtually dead. Her 'T' shirt had come over her head and her breast was hanging out, when some supporters shouted, 'Throw her over here, let us ...' and then added another obscenity.

¶2.12.105 He stated that he had been kicked while attempting to resuscitate dying fans. While he had not seen 'the looting of bodies ... he and other colleagues ended up with ten bodies and the bodies had nothing on them at all, not even a handkerchief'.

¶2.12.106 PC Middup considered that there were two issues requiring clarification: 'they were that he was told the supporters were seen to be picking up items from the floor and the policewoman was urinated on'. Mr Booth 'stated that one of his men said he had witnessed people picking stuff up from the floor around the dead bodies'. (Name redacted) commented that other officers had been 'urinated on'.

¶2.12.107 The meeting criticised senior officers and raised the issue of junior and inexperienced officers, including special constables, having to deal with dead bodies. Soon after, the Chief Constable, Peter Wright, joined the meeting. He noted the continuing criticisms of the police published in the media, the 'trauma' that had been inflicted on the 'Force itself', and all that had happened 'has to be said' as there 'would be a Judicial Inquiry'. He then discussed his statements to the media:

¶Mr. Wright stated he had to say on Saturday night we opened a gate to save lives outside. He said he had received all sorts of horrendous stories ... he had made a conscious decision not to talk about these things – the behaviour of the fans. The mass of the crowd was the reason for opening the gate. He added he did not think there was any purpose or merit to respond in this way. Although Mr. Wright admitted he would have liked to have been able to make the comments which Mr. Middup had made.

355

¶2.12.108 The Chief Constable advised the meeting to make 'notes on paper from recollections of events ... giving an indication of what happened on that day', for the 'only people to influence were the Judicial Inquiry' and SYP 'had to look at it ourselves'.

¶2.12.109 He had invited 'officers who were on duty at the Leppings Lane end to come and talk about it today' to gather 'evidence collectively from the officers who were there'. He stated that all officers were 'in it together'.

¶2.12.110 CC Wright counselled against talking to the media. He praised the officers who had dealt with the temporary mortuary, recounting the procedure that had been adopted. He was questioned about the visibility of senior officers in the immediate aftermath of the disaster and about the 'cut in manpower' because 'this information could be dangerous if someone outside became aware of it'.

¶2.12.111 The meeting then reverted to informing the Chief Constable about the behaviour of Liverpool fans, particularly allegations of heavy drinking.

¶2.12.112 The Chairman, Bob Lax, told the Chief Constable that 'fans who had travelled across the Woodhead [Pass] had left a trail of beer cans' and a 'video car had been sent round the whole route and he likened it to driving through confetti, driving through the beer cans'. In fact, the video material disclosed to the Panel suggests this was a gross exaggeration.

¶2.12.113 Discussion also focused on secondary accounts of the unfolding disaster including an allegation that Liverpool always had 'a hard core of 2000 supporters who never have a ticket, who go down at the last minute, smash their way through the turnstiles and blast through to the terraces'. CC Wright stated that if this was the case the information should have been given to SYP.

¶2.12.114 According to another officer, on the 'pro-formas circulated throughout the Force [to gather officers' recollections] there were corroborated accounts of vile, repulsive behaviour from Liverpool fans – hundreds of them'. In fact there were a few accounts of inappropriate behaviour among the large crowd before the match, but also references to the good-natured behaviour of most.45

¶2.12.115 CC Wright informed the meeting that 'we had got to catch it whilst it is hot' and 'we must pull our case together and present our case to the Inquiry team'. He 'felt a tremendous responsibility to get ourselves moving' and 'anyone who acts in good faith would get as much support as possible'. They were engaged in 'preparing a defence and we had got to prepare a rock solid story'. He was 'delighted the Inquiry had started and believed we would be exonerated'.

¶2.12.116 He stated further that 'the Inquiry team could be directed but if we sit back and let them collect the evidence, we would lose it. We have to do it ourselves'. It was vital to

45. For example, statement of Tim Cooke, Professor of Surgery, Glasgow, SYP000065110001, p4 and statement of Dr

¶John Ashton, 19 April 1989, SYP000096240001, p28.

356

¶ensure that the information regarding fans' behaviour was logged, for 'if anybody should be blamed, it should be the drunken ticketless individuals'.

¶2.12.117 The Chairman thanked the Chief Constable for presenting to Police Federation members 'a positive way to deal with it'. The minutes concluded: 'It was agreed by everyone we had to get the message – togetherness – across to the Force'.

¶The Taylor Inquiry 2.12.118 As the Taylor Inquiry entered its initial stages of oral evidence The Times reported an editorial published in the Police Federation's journal, Police, in which an unequivocal connection to football hooliganism had been made. It had stated:

¶Within days of Hillsborough the hooligan was being rehabilitated faster than the oxyacetylene torches were toppling fences. It is as though all the years of mayhem, all the fighting, kicking, destruction, stabbings and deaths linked to soccer violence have been expunged from people's consciousness by one mind numbing tragedy.46 2.12.119 Following C/Supt Duckenfield's evidence claiming that he had lied about fans forcing entry into the stadium to prevent a riot, three newspapers headlined one phrase in Superintendent Roger Marshall's evidence regarding fans' behaviour: 'selfish brutality'.47 2.12.120 Each report stated that Supt Marshall, the officer responsible for crowd management outside the stadium at the Leppings Lane end who had requested the opening of Gate C, had never experienced 'such scenes of chaos and mindless determination as supporters cried out and fought each other to get through the turnstiles'. The 'blind necessity' to gain entry was fuelled by alcohol. He alleged that he had been spat on and a fan had tried to push him from a bridge into the river. 2.12.121 Supt Marshall's evidence was endorsed by Chief Inspector Robert Creaser whose comment that Liverpool fans 'behaved like lager louts' was also widely reported. A police officer, Police Constable Graham Duffy, alleged that the crush at the turnstiles was planned, reported in the Daily Mail as a 'storming' of the stadium.48 2.12.122 Superintendent Morgan was reported as stating that Liverpool fans had been 'painted whiter than white' and that the 'riot' at the turnstiles 'would have been sorted' had the police 'had 20 support units in riot gear' available.49 2.12.123 Although it is clear that there was serious overcrowding in the immediate approaches to the Leppings Lane end, the view that this was caused by fighting, brutality or riotous behaviour is not supported by the statements of others present nor by the CCTV footage. 2.12.124 Another SYP Sergeant added to the conspiracy theory that fans had planned an 'invasion' at Hillsborough and his comment that they behaved like 'animals' was widely and prominently reported. The Sun's headline was '"ANIMALS STAMPED ON HURT FANS" SHAME OF BOOZY YOBS'.50 2.12.125 Over a period of 35 days of evidence from witnesses, the proportion of daily coverage given by national newspapers was: police evidence – 17 days; other professionals

46. Reported in The Times, 15 May 1989. 47. The Times; The Independent; Daily Telegraph, 31 May 1989. 48. Daily Mail, 7 June 1989. 49. Daily Express, 8 June 1989. 50. The Sun, 9 June 1989.

357

¶or agencies – 12 days; and injured supporters, bereaved family members and civilian eye-witnesses – six days. 2.12.126 Andrew Collins, QC to the Taylor Inquiry, provided a note of caution regarding the oral evidence. The Times reported his comment that 'it was impossible to accept that the crushing was caused by fans without tickets' and while some had arrived at the stadium 'in a condition affected by alcohol, increasing selfish and stupid behaviour, which was inexcusable ... it did not cause the trouble'.51

¶Statements released to White's News Agency and forwarded to Irvine Patnick MP 2.12.127 On 12 July 1989, a month before publication of LJ Taylor's Interim Report, Peter Moxon at White's News Agency wrote to Irvine Patnick MP enclosing 'extracts from the sworn statements made by witnesses to the Hillsborough Disaster'.52

¶2.12.128 The covering letter stated that White's had been 'prevented from using the contents of these statements and told it would be regarded as contempt if we ignored the ruling by Lord Justice Taylor'.

¶2.12.129 The six attached statements had been made by stewards, police officers and an ambulance officer. Single pages had been extracted from the statements and allegations highlighted. A Detective Sergeant who had entered pen 3 stated he had been 'kicked in the back' while rescuing an unconscious young fan, then 'someone behind me picked up a length of broken crush barrier and threw it over the [pen] fence at the Police [on the perimeter track]'. Further, 'some [officers] alleged that [fans] had been running forward and picking up property from the front terracing. I was in the pen but had not seen this'.

¶2.12.130 In another abridged statement a different Detective Sergeant stated that several fans who had 'clambered over the perimeter fence [to escape the pens] had been drinking heavily and smelled strongly of intoxicants'. He alleged that 'some of these supporters' were 'spitting and kicking officers who were in the process of attempting resuscitation'. He was called a 'murderer'.

¶2.12.131 An ambulance officer's statement noted that he had 'received kicks and punches from the Liverpool supporters ... I believe out of sheer frustration'. A steward claimed he saw another steward 'grabbed' by fans and called a 'BASTARD'. He had seen 'urine ... falling from the West Stand' because fans 'too lazy to go to the toilet … were urinating from the back of the stand'. Further, he alleged that a snack bar was 'looted' for 'pies and other food' while the attendant was helping with the rescue.

¶2.12.132 In another extract a police officer on the pitch stated that he had helped to lift a young woman onto a board to carry her to the gymnasium: 'she was in a state of undress and fans were jeering but I couldn't tell what they were shouting'. He 'assisted in making her decent' before she was carried away.

¶2.12.133 Mr Patnick replied briefly to Mr Moxon, commenting that the enclosed statements 'actually confirm everything you stated'.53 He was grateful to Mr Moxon 'for taking the trouble to send these on and I shall remember it and it was appreciated'. There is no indication in the exchange of letters as to how White's News Agency had come by the

51. The Times, 15 July 1989. 52. Letter from Peter Moxon, White's News Agency, to Irvine Patrick MP, 12 July 1989, SYP000046060001, pp25-38. 53. Letter from Irvine Patnick MP to Peter Moxon, White's News Agency, 27 July 1989, SYP000046060001, p26.

358

¶statements taken initially by SYP, at this time held as part of the West Midlands Police (WMP) investigation.

¶The Taylor Interim Report, August 1989 2.12.134 As stated in Part 1, LJ Taylor's Interim Report was unambiguous in finding that 'although there were other causes, the main reason for the disaster was the failure in police control'.54 Although there were 'notable exceptions' LJ Taylor considered that 'senior officers in command were defensive and evasive witnesses' and 'neither their handling of problems on the day nor their account of it in evidence showed the qualities of leadership to be expected of their rank'.

¶2.12.135 LJ Taylor went on to criticise C/Supt Duckenfield and Superintendent Bernard Murray for misjudging the congestion at the turnstiles, the monitoring of turnstile entry, the management of the crowd and not delaying the kick-off. 2.12.136 C/Supt Duckenfield's 'capacity to take decisions and give orders seemed to collapse' and he 'failed to give necessary consequential orders or exert any control when the disaster occurred'. Finally, he was 'untruthful' in giving information 'that there had been an inrush due to Liverpool fans forcing open a gate'. 2.12.137 More generally, it was 'a matter of regret that at the hearing, and in their submissions, the South Yorkshire Police were not prepared to concede they were in any respect at fault in what had occurred'. While C/Supt Duckenfield had apologised for 'blaming the Liverpool fans for causing the deaths', the SYP 'case was to blame the fans for being late and drunk, and to blame the Club for failing to monitor the pens'. 2.12.138 LJ Taylor noted that some officers had 'described a high proportion' of Liverpool fans 'as drunk, as "lager-louts" or even as "animals"' while others noted an 'unco-operative minority who had drunk too much'.55 2.12.139 He 'was satisfied on the evidence, however, that the great majority were not drunk or even the worse for drink'. It was his view that 'some officers, seeking to rationalise their loss of control, over-estimated the drunken element in the crowd'. 2.12.140 Further, LJ Taylor found no evidence to demonstrate that there was a 'very significant body of ticketless fans in the crowd which built up'. He also dismissed the 'slender evidence' on which the 'suggestion that fans without tickets conspired to arrive late and create such trouble as would force the police to admit them to the match' was based. 2.12.141 Apart from the failure to manage the crowd at the turnstiles, LJ Taylor considered that as the central pens on Leppings Lane terrace were visibly full at 2.50pm, 'the tunnel should have been closed off whether Gate C was to be opened or not' – a 'simple' procedure previously carried out. 2.12.142 Whether or not the procedure was known to senior officers, 'it should have been clear in the control room [Police Control Box inside the stadium] where there was a clear view of the pens and of the crowd at the turnstiles that the tunnel had to be closed'. The 'failure' to order the closing of the tunnel 'was a blunder of the first magnitude'.

54. The Rt Hon Lord Justice Taylor The Hillsborough Stadium Disaster, 15 April 1989, Interim Report. Cm 765, London:

¶Her Majesty's Stationery Office, pp49-50. 55. The Rt Hon Lord Justice Taylor The Hillsborough Stadium Disaster, 15 April 1989, Interim Report. Cm 765, London:

¶Her Majesty's Stationery Office, pp34-40.

359

¶The Police Federation responds to the Taylor Interim Report 2.12.143 A month after the Taylor Interim Report was published Michael Shersby MP, who represented the Police Federation's interests in Parliament, met with the Home Secretary to discuss a range of issues, one of which was the 'Hillsborough Disaster'.56 2.12.144 In a document recording the meeting disclosed to the Panel, Mr Shersby reported that 'morale in South Yorkshire [SYP] had taken a great knock as a result of Lord Justice Taylor's interim report'. The police officers on duty 'felt they had been shouldered with an unfair portion of the blame'.

¶2.12.145 There was also concern that the SYP solicitor had decided 'to eliminate some material from the police evidence to the inquiry'. This included 'emotional matters such as the alleged theft of items which had fallen from victims' pockets, and instances of those in the ground pouring urine on the police'. According to Mr Shersby the solicitor considered 'that these pieces of evidence were not relevant to the purpose of the Inquiry'.

¶2.12.146 With the exception of the removal of intemperate and unsubstantiated material during the review and alteration of statements (see Chapter 11), the Panel has not found evidence of such material being excluded from police statements.

¶2.12.147 Further, Mr Shersby stated that there 'was a feeling in South Yorkshire that the police investigation led by the West Midlands force was proceeding with a determination to produce prosecutions just to show that justice was being done'.

¶2.12.148 While he considered that the Taylor Interim Report was 'not a good one', failing 'to reflect the problems the police faced nationally', the Home Secretary replied that the 'Federated ranks did not come out of the interim report badly'.

¶2.12.149 A month later, Mr Shersby met with the South Yorkshire Police Federation. It was a day-long meeting held in two sessions. The morning session was attended by representatives of the Police Federation, DCC Hayes (attending on behalf of the Chief Constable), Chief Superintendent John Nesbit, Chief Superintendent Brian Mole, Chief Inspector Norman Bettison ('Hillsborough Inquiry Team'), Tony Judge (Publicity Director, Police Federation and editor of Police, the Federation journal) and two representatives of the Federation's solicitors, Russell Jones and Walker.57

¶2.12.150 The Chairman of the South Yorkshire Police Federation opened the meeting stating that its purpose 'was to draw out information that would be helpful for Michael Shersby when parliament came to debate the Hillsborough Disaster'.

¶2.12.151 DCC Hayes considered that the meeting had two focuses: '1. To try and enable us to have a better understanding of what happened at Hillsborough by way of video presentation and photographs. 2. The afternoon session would be spent listening to police officers who had two things to say, namely they felt at risk and they felt frustrated'. The Chief Constable's 'unequivocal' acceptance of the Taylor Interim Report had been made to 'get on with [its] recommendations'.

¶2.12.152 CI Bettison introduced the video material. He commented on the stadium's age and its location: 'Officers were forced to police a ground that today would have greater

56. Meeting with Mr Michael Shersby MP on 6 September, Private Office, 7 September 1989, CJ Walters, Principal Private

¶Secretary HOM000011510001, p2. 57. Meeting at South Yorkshire Police Federation Headquarters, Tuesday 3 October 1989, Morning session,

¶SYP000046060001, pp3-22.

360

¶strictures on how it was built, access roads etc'. He noted where the deaths occurred and the collapsed barrier in pen 3. He stated that the pens were estimated, from a headcount on a photograph taken at 3.05pm, to be 'at least 50% over capacity' and proposed that overcrowding contributed to the collapsed barrier.

¶2.12.153 Fans 'went in the pen because they came down the tunnel' and they 'went down the tunnel because they came through Emergency Gate C'.

¶2.12.154 The gates had been opened 'on the instructions of the police' but the 'view of the Police Federation is that there was such a crowd of people outside, there was no realistic alternative to opening the gate'.

¶2.12.155 The video presented was 29 minutes long, 'culled' by CI Bettison from 65 hours of video footage. The minutes of the meeting record what presumably was CI Bettison's commentary: 'Perimeter fences were the result of hooliganism – walls demolished, missile attacks on police officers, supporters climbing perimeter fences, pitch invasion'. The last was 'thought to be the case at Hillsborough'.

¶2.12.156 What followed was a description of the Hillsborough Stadium layout including Gate C, the tunnel and the pens: 'Signs were a club responsibility'. CCTV footage of the 1988 Semi-Final was contrasted with footage from 1989. The comment is made that the 'normality of the 1988 match influenced the planning of the 1989 semi final'.

¶2.12.157 The video showed the build-up of fans at the turnstiles, estimated at 2.39pm as between 2,000 and 6,000. The meeting was informed that the crowd was 'massively uncooperative' and the '44 officers plus mounted officers (17)' were 'reliant on some co-operation on [sic] the 6,000 people around them'. It was alleged by C/Supt Nesbit that ticketless fans were trying to 'barter with the stewards' to gain entry.

¶2.12.158 DCC Hayes stated that there had been a steadier flow of fans in 1988 but in 1989 'they all came in the last 20 minutes', most 'from licensed premises'. The video showed the period immediately before Gate C was opened. Its opening did not result in a 'mad rush or stampede as press referred to'.

¶2.12.159 Asked about 'guidance' of fans entering through Gate C and communications, CI Bettison stated that no announcements were made. Communications 'broke down at 14.42' and 'remained difficult'. DCC Hayes noted that 'Ground control could see all the cameras'.

¶2.12.160 CI Bettison stated that as crushing increased in the central pens there 'was plenty of room in Pen 2'. There were available '[m]ore policemen than could do any good'. He described C/Supt Nesbit's organisation of the evacuation of the pens. C/Supt Nesbit commented that the '[collapsed] barrier was rusted and corroded ... 63 years old'. CI Bettison remarked that a newspaper 'from the 1940s was found stuffed in one part of the barrier'.

¶2.12.161 C/Supt Nesbit stated that the police allowed fans to help to carry the bodies to the gymnasium 'otherwise they might have turned their frustration on the police'. He reflected that while there had been 'criticism that the police did not react as quickly as they should ... most people thought it was a pitch invasion'.

¶2.12.162 The notes of the meeting recorded C/Supt Mole commenting that the '[m]en involved in football matches were thoroughly experienced' but what was different 'in this instance, what changed was the fans'. He claimed that one public house 'sold 69 barrels of beer'. Fans had urinated in private gardens and their behaviour 'was the worst seen'.

361

¶2.12.163 C/Supt Nesbit considered that Liverpool fans had been determined to 'get into the stadium' and that officers 'do not feel this was brought to Lord Justice Taylor's notice'. He hoped that 'Michael Shersby can in Parliament redress the balance'. C/Supt Mole stated that the Superintendents' Association considered the 'report was done in haste'.

¶2.12.164 Mr Judge considered the Taylor Interim Report was 'over the top'. According to the notes of the meeting he stated: 'The idea that a peaceful crowd went into a trap created by the South Yorkshire Police should not go down in history' and evidence 'not given in the Taylor Report should come out'.

¶2.12.165 C/Supt Nesbit commented that '[a]ll officers do feel the report is imbalanced. But if we challenge, we look as though we are going on the offensive'. Dick Coyles, Vice-Chairman of the Police Federation, stated that SYP 'have been made a scapegoat and officers feel inadequate and condemned by that'.

¶2.12.166 Mr Shersby reported that in discussions with government ministers (and reflecting what had been said to him by the Home Secretary) 'the very strong impression is that Police Federation members do not come badly out of the report and they are seen to have done a good job at Hillsborough'. He continued:

¶However, I think that the view needs to be greatly amplified and that the general public need to understand that because they only read what they see in the popular daily newspapers. Important to bring out that the police did behave magnificently on this occasion in very difficult circumstances.

¶2.12.167 Mr Judge commented that morale in the SYP rank and file was high 'and they repudiate the [Taylor] judgement'. He felt that it 'should come across in a debate and we should plan with Michael Shersby a counter attack'.

¶The rank and file 2.12.168 The afternoon session of the meeting was introduced by Bob Lax, Chairman of the South Yorkshire Police Federation, and was attended by the Federation solicitors, CI Bettison, Inspector Gordon Sykes and many unnamed SYP officers. Opening the meeting, CI Bettison stated that the morning session had agreed that officers on duty at Hillsborough 'were the most professional experienced men in the service'. He quoted Superintendent Roger Greenwood's comments to the Sheffield Star in which he had stated his 'greatest admiration' for the 'heroics' of the police on duty at Hillsborough.

¶2.12.169 He then referenced the Taylor Interim Report: 'Most officers did all they could. Many supporters paid tribute'. Further: 'Over many years the South Yorkshire Police have given excellent service to the public'. The minutes of the meeting record CI Bettison as stating:

¶You have the opportunity to present more balance to the Report: fit those paragraphs much more in context. Removal of certain items of evidence that were presented to the Hillsborough Inquiry Team ... For example, Liverpool fans 'they were all animals' – matters of conjecture and opinion were removed from those statements ... Officers who felt aggrieved by this were asked to let me know.

362

¶2.12.170 Insp Sykes stated that he 'wanted to protect the people I represent i.e. the federated ranks' so that Mr Shersby could 'put our point of view in Parliament'. He had been prevented from giving some of his evidence to LJ Taylor. He continued:

¶When we were rescuing people, we cleared a passageway and took the injured and the dead away. Whilst I was there, there were three police officers trying to carry a young girl who was unconscious and had stopped breathing. They dragged her into the main concourse. Her T shirt came over her head and her breasts were exposed.

¶Someone shouted: 'Throw her up here. I'll fuck her'. When I came to that part of the evidence, I was told not to say that part, to go on about the rescue. It is that type of thing that we should look to Michael Shersby to put a proper balance back into this Report.

¶2.12.171 In response, individual police officers addressed the meeting, often in extreme and emotive terms. Spectators were described as 'stoned paralytic' and 'pissed out of their minds'. There was 'senseless drinking', 'Leppings Lane … was full of idiots with ale' and 'you could smell alcohol in the air outside the football ground'.

¶2.12.172 Yet in the documents disclosed to the Panel there is no evidence from other sources that drinking before the match was excessive, and the objective evidence suggests that alcohol consumption was reasonable and unexceptional for a major sporting event.

¶2.12.173 References were made to a 'sea' or a 'tide' of fans arriving at the stadium at approximately 2.45pm and a police officer stated that a '[n]oticeable number ... did not have tickets'. Another stated that at '2.45pm when the mob arrived, I have never seen anything like it'. He felt 'ashamed to be English' and had the police 'tried to arrest them, I dread to think what would have happened'.

¶2.12.174 Another officer considered the Taylor Interim Report a 'whitewash' that had portrayed the police as 'scapegoats'. He believed that there had been a conspiracy among Liverpool fans who 'were intent on staying away until the last minute and then forcing entry at any cost'.

¶2.12.175 Documentary evidence considered in Chapter 2 does not confirm a significant number of ticketless fans, and CI Bettison responded to the meetings that 'Inspector King of Scotland Yard was asked to find out whether there was a conspiratorial effort – he could not find any direct evidence that Liverpool supporters held this conspiratorial view, apart from three isolated statements … in the pub'. Nor is there any evidence in the disclosed documents to confirm that there was a surge of badly behaved late arrivals, with or without tickets.

¶Police officers' reactions to the Taylor Inquiry 2.12.176 Police officers present at the meeting were critical of the Taylor Inquiry, regarded repeatedly as a 'whitewash'. According to one, LJ Taylor 'knew that if the truth came out about Liverpool fans it would be the death of Liverpool [Football] Club' and the Interim Report had given 'Liverpool a carte blanche to do what they want'. The minutes record that his comments drew 'applause from the audience'.

¶2.12.177 Another officer asserted that 'Lord Justice Taylor was not prepared to hear any criticisms of the Liverpool supporters'. South Yorkshire Police Federation Chairman Bob Lax stated that a WMP investigating officer had told him that LJ Taylor was determined to 'rush' his Interim Report against the wishes of the WMP team because 'they had not collated all the evidence collected about drinking'. Mr Judge was 'astounded' that evidence in police officers' statements 'was simply passed over by Counsel' and by LJ Taylor.

363

¶2.12.178 In drawing the meeting to a close the Police Federation solicitor commented that there was no 'realistic judicial challenge' to the Taylor Interim Report, but he hoped 'that some balance can be restored through the public channels'. Further, there would be 'obviously an opportunity at the Inquest to redress the balance'.

¶2.12.179 Mr Shersby addressed the audience: 'No-one could listen to what you have said without being impressed by the clearness of your evidence'. He would 'consider carefully' how it could be used 'to get your views across'. To applause, Mr Shersby concluded:

¶We have listened to 50 Police Officers. I am very unhappy and disturbed about what

¶I have heard, not only about the events you had to deal with but that so many Police

¶Officers feel so strongly about the Inquiry which has been set up by Parliament. It is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs and you have my assurance that I will remedy it.

¶2.12.180 The final contribution recorded in the minutes came from Mr Judge who had never attended 'a gathering where you can say these things'. He stated that PC Middup, Secretary of the South Yorkshire Police Federation, had been vindicated. Although 'crucified in the press' it was PC Middup 'who spoke the truth'.

¶Promoting the 'counter-attack' 2.12.181 Within weeks Mr Judge published a two-page review of the Shersby meetings. Under the banner headline 'Hillsborough – the police who dispute Taylor's verdict' the sub- heading read 'the anger still felt by ordinary police men and women who consider the inquiry report has whitewashed the hooligan element among Liverpool followers'.58

¶2.12.182 The article reported that the Police Federation Vice-Chairman, Mr Coyles, and Mr Shersby had described the Sheffield meeting as 'distressing and disturbing'. Mr Coyles was quoted as stating: 'These men and women have been through a hellish experience and they are labouring under a terrible sense of injustice'.

¶2.12.183 According to Mr Judge, there was 'no doubt at all that their recovery is being hampered, not just by understandable, if unfounded, feelings of guilt and inadequacy, but their resentment of the Taylor version of events leading up to the kick off at 3pm that day'. In fact the Police Federation solicitor had written to LJ Taylor stating that 'his report had failed to take account of the true significance of events preceding the kick-off, and asking for the evidence of rank and file to be reassessed'. Mr Judge stated that LJ Taylor declined the request.

¶2.12.184 The article stated that the Taylor Interim Report 'suggests that the junior police officers exaggerated the level of drunkenness and general disorderliness ...'. Officers had responded by claiming that LJ Taylor 'was not told the full truth because of the way in which their statements were edited, or because they were not allowed to give evidence which they considered to be of the utmost importance'.

¶2.12.185 What followed in Mr Judge's account were synopses of the allegations about drunkenness, 'urinating in the streets' and fans without tickets. It continued: 'As to the precise actions of some of the fans that day, the allegations made by the officers are as

58. Article by Tony Judge in The Police Magazine, SCC000002600001, pp214-215.

364

¶specific as they are sickening, but it would be pointless and unnecessarily offensive to recount them here'.

¶2.12.186 According to Mr Judge, the 'picture that emerges from all these officers is quite different from Lord Taylor's portrayal of a "normal" big match crowd'. Rather, 'a large section of Liverpool fans ... had been drinking to excess, many of whom were ticketless, but all of whom were determined to get into the ground before kick off'.

¶2.12.187 Among the 'majority of Liverpool fans' who had 'behaved with total propriety' was a 'large contingent of drink sodden louts whose general behaviour had shocked experienced police officers'. LJ Taylor and his assessors had 'rejected this interpretation of events' yet 'if the police version is indeed, the unpalatable truth, the Hillsborough Inquiry's interim report has ignored a major cause for concern'.

¶2.12.188 The article's publication coincided with Liverpool returning to Hillsborough to play Sheffield Wednesday in a league match. On the evening of the match the Sheffield Star published the headline 'NEW "LOUTS" TAG FOR LIVERPOOL FANS'.59 2.12.189 Given the severity of SYP officers' allegations published in the Tony Judge article, the Star considered it 'essential that Lord Taylor responds to these charges as soon as possible'. The following day the national press repeated SYP officers' accusations. There had been 'mass drunkenness', with fans 'stoned paralytic' and 'drink sodden' while the real issues had been 'whitewashed' by the Taylor Inquiry.60

¶Superintendent Bettison visits Parliament 2.12.190 A memorandum disclosed to the Panel and written by recently promoted Superintendent Bettison to the SYP Chief Constable in early November noted that at the October Police Federation meeting Mr Shersby had invited him to repeat his video presentation and commentary to an invited group of MPs in London.61 The Chief Constable had agreed and of the 40-plus MPs invited, 12 met with Supt Bettison on 8 November. 2.12.191 Supt Bettison reported that the ' "public" response' to his 'presentation was devalued by posturing and rhetoric on all sides' but 'individually' five MPs had 'warmly welcomed the input'. He had faced 'invective' and the 'monotonous persistence' of a Labour MP had 'caused' a Conservative MP 'to throw down his papers and storm out of the Committee Room'. 2.12.192 He considered that the meeting had divided on party lines. Another Labour MP 'had already made up his mind where the blame for the disaster lies – with the South Yorkshire Police'. Conservative MPs took an opposing view and one 'confided that in his view Taylor had got it all wrong and, as far as he was concerned, he intended to put the record straight'. 2.12.193 Supt Bettison reminded the Chief Constable that the Parliamentary debate on LJ Taylor's Interim Report had been postponed. Two Conservative MPs 'expressed disappointment that the debate was not more imminent as they believed the passage of time will diminish the impact of their "promised" attack upon the findings of the Interim Report'.

59. Sheffield Star, 29 November 1989. 60. The Guardian; The Times; Daily Express; Daily Mirror; The Sun, 30 November 1989. 61. Memo on Presentation to Members of Parliament on the subject of the Hillsborough disaster, from Superintendent NG

¶Bettison to Chief Constable, SYP, 9 November 1989, SYP000097010001, pp 349-351.

365

¶2.12.194 Finally, Supt Bettison noted that Mr Shersby 'mentioned privately that he had taken the opportunity to discuss the Hillsborough disaster presentation with the Home Secretary who expressed interest in seeing the video tape'. Mr Shersby would meet with the Chief Constable at the Police Federation dinner when 'he intends to raise this matter with you'.

¶The Chief Constable responds to the Interim Report 2.12.195 Prior to the inquests, in February 1990 the allegation of fans' drunkenness was taken further by the SYP Chief Constable, Peter Wright. Under the Daily Mail headline 'HILLSBOROUGH CHIEF ATTACKS JUDGE', CC Wright expressed 'difficulty' in understanding how drink was of no consequence. He stated that 'there were other factors ... which he hoped would emerge at the coroner's inquest and give people a different view of what happened'.62

¶2.12.196 Following an 'exclusive interview' with 'tough-talking' CC Wright the Sheffield Star published a story headlined 'Coroner will reveal the true story'.63 The accompanying strap line was 'Hillsborough Disaster Inquiry'. He noted the 'very strong feeling of resentment and injustice' among SYP officers, not least because 'nobody seems to have grasped the full picture'.

¶2.12.197 The Star reported that CC Wright 'thought some of Lord Justice Taylor's comments were "harsh" and "savage"' but he was confident that a 'different picture' would emerge at the inquests. There were 'a lot of comments' he 'would like to make on Lord Justice Taylor's report, but in the circumstances I can't'.

¶2.12.198 As discussed in Chapter 6, following complaints by bereaved families,64 CC Wright's comments were investigated by WMP.65 The issue was whether he had sought to impose undue pressure on the inquests. Complaints that had been made against CC Wright were found to be unsubstantiated and the decision was that no breach of discipline had occurred.

¶Irvine Patnick MP – a further intervention 2.12.199 In the same month that CC Wright made his criticisms of the Taylor Interim Report Mr Patnick wrote to Detective Superintendent Stanley Beechey who had a significant role in the WMP investigation.66 According to the letter D/Supt Beechey had visited the House of Commons on Monday 19 February. At the meeting Mr Patnick had agreed to 'supply ... further particulars'. He enclosed copies of the record of the Police Federation meeting with Mr Shersby and his correspondence with White's News Agency.

¶2.12.200 Mr Patnick had already provided the WMP investigation with his personal account of events, previously sent to LJ Taylor. In his covering letter to D/Supt Beechey he stated: 'I do think that the South Yorkshire police's evidence was not fully taken into account at the Inquiry and as a common thread runs through the three reports [his own, the Police Federation meeting and the exchange with White's] I do so hope something can be done to rectify this'.

62. Daily Mail, 6 February 1990. 63. Sheffield Star, 6 February 1990, SYP000123600001, p126. 64. Letter from Mr Devonside to South Yorkshire Police Authority, 3 March 1990, SYP000123600001, p131; Letter from

¶Mr and Mrs Hicks to South Yorkshire Police Authority, 7 February 1990, SYP000123600001, p129. 65. Complaint against CC Peter Wright, Investigating Officer's Report, 23 April 1990, SYP000123600001, from p213. 66. Letter from Irvine Patnick MP to Detective Superintendent S Beechey 'Hillsborough Stadium Disaster 15th April 1989',

¶21 February 1990, SYP000046060001, p2.

366

¶
• As the severity of the disaster was becoming apparent, SYP Match Commander, Chief Superintendent David Duckenfield, told a falsehood to senior officials that Liverpool fans had broken into the stadium and caused an inrush into the central pens thus causing the fatal crush. While later discredited, this unfounded allegation was broadcast internationally and was the first explanation of the cause of the disaster to enter the public domain.
• Within days, further serious allegations emerged from unnamed sources, a Police Federation spokesperson and a local Conservative MP, Irvine Patnick. These were that Liverpool fans had conspired to arrive late, many were without tickets, were exceptionally drunk and aggressive and determined to force entry into the stadium.
• On 19 April, four days after the disaster, The Sun newspaper published a front-page story under the banner headline, 'THE TRUTH', alleging 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. Although less prominently, and often with a lesser degree of certainty, other regional and national newspapers published similar allegations.
• In a letter revealed to the Panel, within days of The Sun's article its Managing Editor wrote to people, including bereaved families, who had complained about the allegations. While regretting the presentation of the article, he refused to apologise for its 'substance', claiming it was factually accurate. Subsequently the coverage was condemned by the Press Council.
• Given the broader press reporting of the allegations, the Panel sought to establish their origins. Documents disclosed to the Panel show that the allegations were filed by White's News Agency, a Sheffield-based company. They were based on meetings over three days between agency staff and several police officers, together with interviews with Irvine Patnick MP and the South Yorkshire Police Federation Secretary, Paul Middup.
• From the documents, it is clear that Mr Patnick based his comments on a conversation with police officers on the evening of the disaster while the officers were in considerable distress. Mr Patnick submitted a detailed account of this meeting and his overall involvement that evening to the Taylor Inquiry.
• Months after the disaster White's News Agency confirmed to the London Evening Standard that its filed stories originated from 'unsolicited' allegations made by 'high ranking' SYP officers to agency 'partners'. There were four separate police sources plus the interview with Mr Patnick. Together these sources were considered sufficient verification for the story to be considered factually accurate and it was distributed accordingly.
• A document disclosed to the Panel shows that while the Taylor Inquiry was in session White's News Agency received copies of several SYP officers' sworn statements alleging drunken and violent behaviour by Liverpool fans. The agency forwarded the statements to Mr Patnick.
• A further document records a meeting in Sheffield of Police Federation members on the morning of the publication of the controversial story in The Sun. The Police Federation Secretary, Mr Middup, confirmed that 'putting our side of the story over to the press and media' had been his priority. He told the meeting that the Chief Constable had stated that 'the truth could not come from him' but he had given the Police Federation a 'free hand' and his support.

367

¶
• At the meeting police officers repeated many of the allegations published in the media. The Chief Constable joined the meeting and advised that the SYP case had to be pulled together and given to the Inquiry. A 'defence' had to be prepared and a 'rock solid story' presented. He believed that the Force would be 'exonerated' by the Taylor Inquiry and considered that 'blame' should be directed towards 'drunken ticketless individuals'.
• Lord Justice Taylor's Interim Report condemned the evidence and testimony of senior police officers and rejected as exaggerated the allegations made against Liverpool fans. He stated categorically that fans' behaviour played no part in the disaster. The South Yorkshire Police Federation held a meeting in Sheffield attended by its Parliamentary representative, Michael Shersby MP. Records of the meeting disclosed to the Panel show that the Police Federation considered the Interim Report was unfair and unbalanced. Mr Shersby was invited to assist in the development of a 'counter attack' to 'repudiate' Lord Justice Taylor's findings.
• The meeting's afternoon session heard from unnamed police officers who repeated the allegations of exceptional levels of abuse, drunkenness and violence. The Interim Report was dismissed as a 'whitewash' and the meeting would provide the basis for promoting the police version of events through 'public channels'. The meeting's content, particularly the allegations, directly informed an article published subsequently in the Police Federation magazine. It was written by its editor who attended and contributed to the meetings.
• In a press interview the South Yorkshire Chief Constable, Peter Wright, also criticised the findings of the Interim Report and expressed confidence that a 'different picture' would emerge at the inquests. His comments drew many complaints and were investigated by WMP. It was decided that no breach of discipline had occurred.
• Consistent with Lord Justice Taylor's findings, 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 and no evidence that they stole from the dead and dying. Documents show that fans became frustrated by the inadequate response to the unfolding tragedy. The vast majority of fans on the pitch assisted in rescuing and evacuating the injured and the dead.