40,000 fans and I know the truth
In the North Stand at Hillsborough, I was among those who saw the disaster unfold - but our story still remains unheard, says Daniel Bennett, barrister, Doughty Street Chambers
On 15 April 1989 I was sitting in the North Stand at Hillsborough with a perfect view of the Leppings Lane end. Along with 40,000-odd other people, I witnessed what has now been described as the biggest cover-up in modern British history. How can you cover up something which is witnessed by more than 40,000 people?
As a 19-year-old, I returned to college after the spring break to read and watch reports of events which I knew to be false. It was not just The Sun. False reports were published by the BBC and ITN, by The Guardian and The Times. By every source of news.
What the Hillsborough panel has revealed is a widespread, almost industrial-scale process of corrupting the witness evidence of all those who worked for the police and ambulance service combined with a PR campaign by every public body involved, from the Police Federation to the Football Association and including the Government. All designed to promote this false story.
While I waited for what I presumed would be a call for witness evidence, the Taylor Report and inquests progressed without reference to the non-establishment witnesses and on the basis of the corrupted evidence of establishment witnesses. The false version of events became the official version.
But 40,000 people knew it was false. And most of us were Scousers.
When Labour came to power on a wave of optimism in 1997, they promised a review of what these “underground” witnesses claimed was a false version of events. Instead, Jack Straw appointed Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, widely thought of as one of Britain’s most right-wing judges.
On the first day of his review, he greeted the families of the deceased with the welcome, “Have you got a few of your people or are they like the Liverpool fans, turning up at the last minute?”. Not only were they not late, he had greeted them with one of the very blood libels which they sought to overturn. His review confirmed the libels as truth.
But over 40,000 people knew it was a lie and they all told their friends, many of whom were Scousers. The justice campaign was born by word of mouth and passed by person to person. My witness statement is one of many on the Hillsborough justice campaign’s website. This is hosted on a website in Holland as threats of injunctions by the Police Federation prevent its publication in this country.
The Hillsborough panel has not reported the truth. The panel has reported the version of events as originally told by the establishment witnesses. A brief review of the list of personnel whose statements and documents formed part of the review reveal little or no testimony of non-establishment witnesses. The truth of the extent of the actions to block the escape of fans and to block the medical treatment of fans remains untold by the courts and the media. But it remains known by more than 40,000 people and continues to be told by word of mouth.
There is still some way to go before the true story of Hillsborough becomes a common and accepted narrative. But there are too many witnesses for it not to happen in time.
Readers' comments (4)
Richard Moorhead | 20-Sep-2012 9:05 am
This is a powerful and moving piece. Tony Blair's response to a memory prior to the setting up of LJ Stuart-Smith's Inquiry provides an interesting indication of the approach of Government. Suggests he and Straw were just going through the motions.
See here:
http://sport.uk.msn.com/blog/beyond-the-far-post-blogpost.aspx?post=a6bdb44f-4f7f-4dd5-af17-8ba752d661a5
The (v short) memo repays reading.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Lavender | 21-Sep-2012 6:45 am
"The truth of the extent of the actions to block the escape of fans and to block the medical treatment of fans remains untold by the courts and the media. But it remains known by more than 40,000 people and continues to be told by word of mouth."
Are you suggesting here that the SYP deliberately allowed fans to die?
What I watched on my tv screen was a scene of total chaos, thousands of people in the stands and hundreds if not thousands on the pitch
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Helen | 21-Sep-2012 1:21 pm
I don't think the SYP deliberately allowed fans to die but they didn't do enough to help them live. They had assumed the fans were at fault and were incapable of realising the gravity of the situation. And I'd guess that was in no part due to institutional contempt of football fans and in particular, Liverpool fans (this was only 4 years after Heysel). Football fans were treated as drunk hooligans, including children.
If you know anything about Liverpool you will know that families are split down the middle between supporting Everton and Liverpool FC - blue and red coexist pretty harmoniously. However, in 1992 a friend said that she thought that Hillsborough would not have happened if Everton had been playing Notts Forest that afternoon. Same city, same families, different colour. What would have been different? But it's an opinion that goes some way to explaining how you could cover this up.
By the way LJ Stuart-Smith, the reason why so many fans were late was that there were hold-ups on the roads.
If a cover up on this scale can go on with 40,000 witnesses, it makes you really wonder what can go on with individuals.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Phil Scraton | 28-Sep-2012 2:06 pm
Daniel states,'The Hillsborough panel has not reported the truth. The panel has reported the version of events as originally told by the establishment witnesses.' Our terms of reference obliged us to seek full disclosure of documents from all public and private bodies concerned with the context, circumstances and aftermath of Hillsborough, to analyse those documents and demonstrate how that disclosure 'adds to public understanding'. We accessed and researched the mass of material from 85 agencies and our 395 page Report responds to our Terms in detail. In presenting the Report to the families and survivors for over two hours on 12 September it was clear that the 'truth' of the Report, including our analysis of the circumstances concerning 'escape', 'medical treatment', pathology, criminal and civil actions, coronial inquiry and so on, closely reflected the experiences of witnessing and surviving the disaster - and the endurance of bereavement.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment