Where were allegations about supporter behaviour first published?

As set out in paragraph 7.45, the first media reports that raised allegations of supporter misbehaviour were published on 17 April. However, it was on 18 April that the allegations escalated, with both the Sheffield Star and White’s producing stories with similar details.
The IOPC sought to establish which of the two outlets had been the initial source of these stories.
Assuming the Sheffield Star followed its normal publication times—and no evidence has been found to suggest it did not do so on 18 April 1989—its article ‘Fans in drunken attacks on police’ would have been available from early afternoon, or possibly even late morning.
For White’s, sending news feeds to the nationals was (and remains) a central part of its business. However, it did also sell stories to the Sheffield Star. Therefore, it is possible that the story in the Sheffield Star could have been based on a White’s news feed. However, the evidence examined by the IOPC suggests this is unlikely.
Firstly, the White’s news feed was built up over the course of the day. The initial feed, consisting of just one story, was issued on the morning of 18 April. According to White’s, the second and third parts were then produced in the afternoon. These would, therefore, have been added after the Sheffield Star’s first edition—which included the article—was printed.
Secondly, in their statements to the IOPC, the White’s journalists indicated that they had not done much investigative work around the disaster in the immediate aftermath. The reason was that the majority of their clients—the national media—had sent their own reporters to Sheffield and so did not need the services of a press agency.
By contrast, one of the journalists whose name appeared on the Sheffield Star article ‘Fans in drunken attacks on police’ recalled producing the article. He told IOPC investigators that it took some time to research and develop. Rumours had been circulating about supporter behaviour, so he and a colleague were instructed to interview local residents and workers near the ground. They sought to substantiate claims before the paper was willing to print the article.
The White’s journalists who gave statements to the IOPC did not have any recollection of speaking to local residents. However, it does appear that White’s did have some contact with police officers in this period.
On 12 June 1989, White’s sent a memo to the news editor of the Evening Standard regarding the news feed it had sent out on 18 April 1989. The Evening Standard had been one of the first papers to print the allegations made in the feed.
In the memo, White’s provided an explanation of how the agency came about the information contained in the feed: “all 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 memo further explained that the first claims were received on the night of the disaster, when an officer told one of the journalists about being punched and urinated on. The following day, another of its journalists met by chance with a different officer who said they had witnessed bad behaviour by supporters. At that stage, White’s felt there was not enough confirmation to send a story making such serious claims.
However, when a third officer reiterated the allegations, White’s felt it was appropriate to send the story out.
There were five journalists at White’s at the time who fitted this description of ‘experienced senior journalists’. Two had died before the IOPC investigation began. The IOPC interviewed the other three. None recalled the memo, and none said they were one of the journalists to whom unsolicited allegations were made.
However, all three stated that if they did know the names of any officers who had spoken to the media, they would have been more than willing to disclose them to the IOPC. They commented that the story had damaged the reputation of White’s, and they also all felt that any right the sources may have had to anonymity had been lost by the fact that the stories had been false.
This raises the possibility that officers spoke to both the Sheffield Star and White’s. As noted, the IOPC was not able to identify the officers quoted anonymously. No officer admitted being the source of these quotes. However, it strongly appears that some officers spoke to the media and commented on the behaviour of supporters. A crucial part of the IOPC investigation was therefore to consider whether any of these comments were inappropriate or inaccurate.