Five things we learned from Cameron's Hillsborough statement

Could some of the victims have been saved?

David Cameron's statement on the Hillsborough tragedy has rightly been praised by all sides for its dignified and heartfelt character. As when the Bloody Sunday report was published, the Prime Minister spoke for the nation, declaring that he was "profoundly sorry" that this injustice had been "uncorrected for so long".

You can read the 395 page report in full here, but here are five of the key points from Cameron's statement.

1. Crowd safety was "compromised at every level"

A series of new documents reveal the extent to which the disaster was foreseeable. As Cameron said,"The turnstiles were inadequate. The ground capacity had been significantly over-calculated. The crush barriers failed to meet safety standards. There had been a crush at exactly the same match the year before. And today’s report shows clearly that lessons had not been learnt."

2. 164 police statements were doctored

In an attempt to divert the blame onto the fans, 164 police statements were "significantly amended", while 116 explicitly removed negative comments about the policing operation, including its leadership.

3. Police carried out computer checks on the dead

Perhaps most shockingly, police officers carried out national computer checks on those who had died in an attempt, as the report puts it, "to impugn the reputations of the deceased." In addition, the Coroner took blood alcohol levels from all of the deceased including children, a decision for which there was no reasonable justification. The attempt of the original inquest to draw a link between blood alcohol and late arrival was "fundamentally flawed".

4. The original inquest was wrong

The original coroner's inquest was wrong to suggest that beyond 3.15pm there were no actions that could have changed the fate of the 96 victims. Cameron announced that the independent panel found that "28 did not have obstruction of blood circulation and 31 had evidence of heart and lungs continuing to function after the crush." Individuals in those groups could have had potentially reversible asphyxia beyond 3.15pm.

5. A new inquest?

Cameron announced that the Attorney General would examine the new evidence immediately and "reach a decision as fast as possible", although it was ultimately for the High Court to decide. The Commons will have the opportunity to debate the report in full when it returns after the party conference season in October.

Members of the public view the Hillsborough memorial at Liverpool's Anfield Stadium. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

The problems with ending encryption to fight terrorism

Forcing tech firms to create a "backdoor" to access messages would be a gift to cyber-hackers.

The UK has endured its worst terrorist atrocity since 7 July 2005 and the threat level has been raised to "critical" for the first time in a decade. Though election campaigning has been suspended, the debate over potential new powers has already begun.

Today's Sun reports that the Conservatives will seek to force technology companies to hand over encrypted messages to the police and security services. The new Technical Capability Notices were proposed by Amber Rudd following the Westminster terrorist attack and a month-long consultation closed last week. A Tory minister told the Sun: "We will do this as soon as we can after the election, as long as we get back in. The level of threat clearly proves there is no more time to waste now. The social media companies have been laughing in our faces for too long."

Put that way, the plan sounds reasonable (orders would be approved by the home secretary and a senior judge). But there are irrefutable problems. Encryption means tech firms such as WhatsApp and Apple can't simply "hand over" suspect messages - they can't access them at all. The technology is designed precisely so that conversations are genuinely private (unless a suspect's device is obtained or hacked into). Were companies to create an encryption "backdoor", as the government proposes, they would also create new opportunities for criminals and cyberhackers (as in the case of the recent NHS attack).

Ian Levy, the technical director of the National Cyber Security, told the New Statesman's Will Dunn earlier this year: "Nobody in this organisation or our parent organisation will ever ask for a 'back door' in a large-scale encryption system, because it's dumb."

But there is a more profound problem: once created, a technology cannot be uninvented. Should large tech firms end encryption, terrorists will merely turn to other, lesser-known platforms. The only means of barring UK citizens from using the service would be a Chinese-style "great firewall", cutting Britain off from the rest of the internet. In 2015, before entering the cabinet, Brexit Secretary David Davis warned of ending encryption: "Such a move would have had devastating consequences for all financial transactions and online commerce, not to mention the security of all personal data. Its consequences for the City do not bear thinking about."

Labour's manifesto pledged to "provide our security agencies with the resources and the powers they need to protect our country and keep us all safe." But added: "We will also ensure that such powers do not weaken our individual rights or civil liberties". The Liberal Democrats have vowed to "oppose Conservative attempts to undermine encryption."

But with a large Conservative majority inevitable, according to polls, ministers will be confident of winning parliamentary support for the plan. Only a rebellion led by Davis-esque liberals is likely to stop them.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

0800 7318496