The editor who presided over a front page story which appeared to link the Hillsborough disaster to football hooliganism has left his role.
Maurice O’Brien, 64, was appointed editor of the Reading Chronicle in January after a lengthy career in the local press.
But he has now lost his job in the fallout from a disastrous front page story last month headlined ‘The Other Face of Football’ which looked at recent crowd trouble at Reading FC.
It contained a line which read: “”Football hooliganism may be thought of as a relic from a previous age when gangs of denim-clad skinheads held the game to ransom and names like Hillsborough and Heysel were symbols of its ills.”
The Berkshire Media Group-owned paper subsequently issued an unreserved apology for the remark and Maurice was suspended pending an internal investigation.
Now the company has confirmed that the long-serving newsman has left the company.
Managing director Keith McIntyre told the Liverpool Echo: “I issued a statement last night to staff letting them know that Maurice has left the company.”
The Attorney General’s Office launched an investigation into complaints the newspaper had broken the Contempt of Court Act by running the controversial article ahead of new inquests into the tragedy which started this week, but Dominic Grieve’s office decided not to take action against the paper.
Maurice had been news editor at the Reading Chronicle since 1997 succeeded to the top job after BMG editorial director Sally Stevens left.
He began his career in 1968 on the then Evening Post in Reading before joining the Reading News Agency in 1973, ultimately becoming its owner.
Sign up for our free daily email bulletin
Follow HTFP on Twitter
Got a story? Email the Editor at
Maurice has successfully mentored and trained a huge number of young journalists over the years and I hope that stands as his legacy, not this.
Report this comment
What a silly end to his career at the newspaper. Sad.
Report this comment
An over-reaction by the management. Once again, emotionalism and being politically correct wins the day over the right to free speech and free expression.
We are all sheep now, and we must all toe the party line.
Report this comment
Dare I say this was a totally disproportionate thing to get sacked over, or would I be hunted down and have rotten cabbages at me while being dragged through the streets of Liverpool?
Report this comment
I agree with the above comments. A silly, knee-jerk over-reaction to what seems an unintended inference. Yes, apologise for error, but to respond in such terms and hang the editor out to dry was unnecessary. Best wishes to Maurice.
Report this comment
Yes, this was a bad misjudgement and apologies are more than due. But was this worse than Rod Liddle causing a trial to be abandoned with his right wing rhetoric? Or Jan Moir and Richard Littlejohn’s comments re. Stephen Gately and Lucy Meadows? And have they been lost their jobs? Comments please…
Report this comment
Another good editor lost following a complete overreaction from the upper management.
Report this comment
I reckon offending Reading fans was enough, frankly, considering they’re his readers.
Report this comment
Rotten decision, bending at the knee. A bad, bad mistake was made yes, but a good, experienced man has gone.
Report this comment
So sad to hear this on so many levels.
Report this comment
What utter madness. A mistake, yes – but not one worth losing an experienced editor like this over.
And, objectively, Hillsborough WAS associated with hooliganism. It matters not that this has now been proven to be a substantial error of the justice system – there were many that believed it to be the case for many years.
So while insensitive, perhaps, not altogether inaccurate.
Report this comment
IT was an overhyped, inaccurate non story for a splash in the first place.
Add to that a badly written standfirst that links it to Hillsborough and you have a disaster in the making.
Sackable offence? I think so. Look at the entire story again and decide whether you would have allowed that on your front page.
Report this comment
The editor took a chance and it backfired horribly.
His front page reference linking hooliganism to Hillsborough was cruel, especially as the new inquests into the disaster were just days away.
But in any event, their investigation looks to have been a fragile house of cards.
The fact that it collapsed without defence and a humiliating front page apology published at the first challenge from Reading Football Club would suggest their evidence of local hooligans on the rampage was flimsy to say the least.
It’s horrible to see an experieneced editor take a bullet, but if the investigation had been more rigorous, it wouldn’t have happened.
Report this comment
96 victims’ families are sick of hooliganism being linked to Hillsborough, particularly as this was the angle police originally used to justify their negligence. This was lazy journalism and offensive to the families involved.
This isn’t about political correctness, we’re talking about the deaths of young children and adults and responsible journalism when referencing that incident.
Report this comment
A terrible way for an excellent and highly respected journalist to be treated.
I trust the Liverpool Echo which appeared to relish kicking him so much now feels some remorse for costing a decent person his career. G
Report this comment
Sad that Maurice will be remembered by many people for this error of judgment when he offered so much good advice and practical help to a huge number of young journalists over the years at Reading. They will be grateful for his mentoring.
Report this comment
As others have said I think the sacking may have more to do with turning on the Reading fans following a very minor crowd disturbance.
Likening them to events such as Heysel was a complete over reaction to what happened as strikes of a paper not really feeling it had a strong splash and trying to work up something into a much bigger story.
Report this comment
Unbelievable that an editor is sacked for expressing his opinion, no matter how abhorrent that opinion might be to its readers.
Maybe managements need to draw up a list of ‘Steer Clear’ subjects that their editors aren’t allowed write about, in case someone gets ‘offended’ … immigration, religion, gay marriage, climate change …they’re all gradually starting to appear on the UK media ‘censored’ list.
Report this comment
To follow up on what Desker et al. have said, the supposed “investigation” would still have been an utter farce even without the Hillsborough or Heysel comparisons. If your town’s football team has a strong following, a high percentage of readers are likely to be supporters and you don’t lay into it lightly.
The piece in the Chronicle was trying to claim there was a serious, endemic problem despite the fact that the statistics they cited did not back this up. They highlighted a string of incidents which, although unpleasant, were hardly indicative of a wider trend.
I couldn’t give two hoots about football but I can see how that would have alienated readers. If there was a genuine and demonstrable problem, fine. It would have been a worthy piece of public interest journalism. As it stands, it read like a desperate bid to contrive a controversy. And that, I suspect, is why the editor lost his chair.
Report this comment
As a former trainee of Maurice’s at the Reading Chronicle, I find this whole situation shameful and disgusting. This is a man that has served the paper and wider Reading press with 55+ hour weeks well into his 60s. The treatment of Maurice by management in north of the border, which is completely cut off and blissfully ignorant (by choice) of the outrageous hours put in by its editorial teams, is a pretty good representation of their wider attitude.
Maurice was the best tutor I could have hoped for when I began my career at the Reading Chronicle and the industry has lost a very good man.
Report this comment
Yeah, here you go Cleland Thom, a couple more things to stick in your sneery “steer clear” list.
1) Don’t link the Hillsborough tragedy with hooligans.
2) Don’t link minor disturbances by fans of your local football club to the Heysel disaster.
If the Chronicle’s investigation had more substance it wouldn’t have collapsed at the first challenge from Reading FC or the Hillsborough family groups, would it?
A house of cards blown away.
Report this comment
You must remember that most ‘upper management’ at regional papers are former ad reps, circulation personnel and accounts clerks. They know nothing about journalism and have for years been making inappropriate judgments relating to editorial matters.
Yes, this was an error, but obviously not motivated by malice. It’s a classic case of sacking an editor just so the paper looks good in the eyes of the hand-wringing liberal/PC lobby who appear to dominate our lives nowadays.
As the MD is de facto head of the organisation, I presume he’s walking the plank as well. If not, he/she ought to.
Report this comment
cleland thom, I know your comment about no-go lists may have been tongue-in-cheek but what editor, experienced or otherwise, really needs a hint not to link Hillsborough with hooliganism?
Surely it’s the biggest hot potato around following a family campaign of nearly 25 years, a fresh report clearing the fans of blame and the fact that when the Chronicle published new inquests were imminent?
Add to that the probable fallout from using that mock-up pic and it amounts to a Page One which should have been spiked early on.
Report this comment
I’ve known Maurice for over 40 years. Always a good journalist. I’m glad to read that he mentored younger journos – honourable mentions here for Bob James and Derek Rigby.
Okay, so the consenus is that it was a poor story. Did it merit a bollicking or a sacking? A sacking. I think not! Go well, Maurice.
Report this comment