Hillsborough . . . Quest for the “inconvenient” truth!

Tuesday 11 October 2011

Following an e-petition containing more than 138,000 signatures requesting the full disclosure of all government documents relating to the 1989 Hillsborough disaster, the Government (having promised to put forward for debate any petition that reached more than 100,000 signatures) was prompted to issue a statement that the subject of the petition would be debated in Parliament on the 17 October in a half day debate. The Government was also committed to the full disclosure of the papers (including cabinet papers) pending consultation with the families of the victims and the Hillsborough Independent.

Supported by a Twitter campaign, the Government was obliged to make its position clear and confirm that it was committed to the publication of the documents.  The petition had called for the immediate release of the cabinet papers, seen as potentially significant in revealing the approach taken by the Thatcher administration to the disaster, following a Freedom of Information Act request by the BBC.
The Information Commissioner agreed that the papers would be released after the Hillsborough Independent Panel, set up by the previous government to examine the full circumstances of the disaster, gained access to previously unseen documents.

The Information Commissioner indicated last month in response to the campaign that the government was happy for all the papers to be released as soon as the panel, in consultation with the families, so decides.  It is expected that the information will be shared with the Hillsborough families first and then to the wider public.

Whilst the scheduling of the debate and timing has been welcomed by the Hillsborough Family Support Group as another good piece of the jigsaw, the preferred way forward was for the documents to be considered first in context by the Hillsborough Independent Panel, and then released to the families of the 96 victims before being made public.

The families hope that the report, which will draw on thousands of unreleased documents, will shed light on the many unanswered questions still surrounding the 1989 disaster and its aftermath.

Mindful that the Hillsborough disaster has been the subject of claims, accusations, argument, counter argument and controversy for more than 20 years it is perhaps opportune to look back and reflect on the actual circumstances and also be mindful of other disasters over that terrible 10 year period.

The 1980s became known as the “Disaster Decade” and saw a number of appalling disasters causing significant loss of life, not only at Football grounds: Heysel stadium 29 May 1985; Bradford City 11 May 1985 and Hillsborough 15 April 1989, and also the Kings Cross Tube Fire 18 November 1987, Clapham Rail Collision 12 December 1988 and the Zebrugge (Herald of Free Enterprise) Disaster 8 October 1987.

The worst sporting disaster prior to Hillsborough was when 66 fans were crushed to death during the Glasgow Derby in Scotland in 1971.
Many of us, and especially the families of those who lost loved ones, do not need reminding that at least 96 football supporters died in Britain’s worst-ever sporting disaster.

The “official” explanation at the time was that people were crushed to death at Hillsborough stadium in Sheffield during the FA Cup semi-final between Nottingham Forest and Liverpool resulting from too many Liverpool fans being allowed in to the back of an already full stand at the Leppings Lane end of the ground.

More than 2,000 Liverpool fans had still not got into the stadium when the match started at 3pm.

A police spokesman said orders were given for the gate to the stand to be opened because they believed the pressure of fans outside the ground was “a danger to life”. However as fans rushed in, those already there were pushed forward and crushed against the high, wire-topped safety fences.

Improved security measures which had been introduced at grounds to keep rival fans apart meant that, for many, there was no escape from the crush. Police and match officials attempted to help those trapped clamber over the safety barrier.

Some fans alleged that bad ticket allocation contributed to the disaster, as Liverpool had far more supporters than Nottingham Forest but were given 6,000 fewer tickets and allocated the smaller Leppings Lane stand.

The final death toll from the Hillsborough disaster was 96, with 170 people injured. Following a public inquiry new safety measures were introduced at football grounds across Britain.

Relatives of the Hillsborough victims campaigned for the police officers who were in charge of safety at the ground to be prosecuted. In 2002, the two most senior officers were put on trial: One was acquitted and the charges against the other were dropped when the jury could not agree on a verdict.

The net result of the High Court rulings was that private prosecutions continued. The Crown Prosecution Service showed no signs of taking over the cases, as it had the power to do and so the Hillsborough Family Support Group had to find money to meet the costs of their High Court battle, which left a real sense of injustice.

The Debate in Parliament on 17 October is hoped to be a watershed in order for the real truth to be divulged as to what really happened and who, if anyone, was really to blame. Hopefully for the bereaved families it may also assist them finding a sense of justice and closure to more than 20 years of heartache.

No one doubts that there may well be plenty more twists and turns in the judicial road to a final reckoning on Hillsborough!

22 years on what has British football learnt from its findings following Hillsborough?

After Heysel and Bradford, the tragic events in Sheffield should have emphasised the urgent need for widespread improvements in Britain’s football stadia.

The Taylor report recommended that top grounds in England and Scotland should become all-seater, and certainly these days the Premiership boasts some impressive venues. Old Trafford,  Anfield, the Emirates, Eastlands and Stamford Bridge to name but a few.

A number of clubs, such as Middlesbrough, Derby, Bolton Wanderers and Sunderland, took the radical step of abandoning their traditional base to move to purpose-built venues – another response to the Taylor report.

Lower down, scores of other clubs, helped by the Football Trust, carried out major refurbishments of their stadia, though there was no compulsion to go all-seater.

Despite all this, and more than 20 years after Hillsborough, some fans still argue that standing should still be allowed at even the biggest fixtures, contending that all-seater grounds have diminished the atmosphere, even in the name of safety.

Unfortunately, the standard of Premiership grounds does not appear to have been matched in some European countries.

Ironically, there is now more money than ever in football, thanks to television rights, sponsorship and large crowds.

The hope must be that such wealth enables clubs to constantly monitor the fabric and systems at their grounds to try to make sure that large-scale tragedies are confined to history.