Forum menu
Miners striking for what they believed in their jobs and childrens futures, and police told to stop them, by those in power.
Nothing has changed strikers still seen as scummies out to destroy civilisation according to the press and those in power, and the police in the passenger seat being driven by those in power.
I was only 12 at the time. From what I have read since it looks like the NUM vs GOV was a battle that was inevitable. The unions in the 70's were too strong and too militant. Thatcher felt she had to take them on. Orgreave was just the miners strike equivalent of Goose Green.
Friend of mine was a police inspector with the Met and started his career just before the strike. He had joined with an outlook that he could do something worthwhile and enhance social justice. The stories of the police burning fivers in front of miners families, creating situations where violence was going to be certain and being completely out control were common. They also had sweatshirts printed with ASPOM on them which officially was the Avon & Somerset Police On Manouvers but actually stood for Arthur Scargill pays our mortgages.
Shattered his view of the standard policeman and the Yorkshire force in particular. He stayed to become an influence for good but ended up a very disillusioned man right up to his death a couple of years ago.
There's no surprise that nothing is going to happen and we can all agree that the outcome would be predictable but the record and accountability have been avoided.
At the end of a piece recently John Humpries said that the thing that Aberfan has taught us is that we should never stop questioning authority.
@outofbreath: coal imported from poland and then australia because '....it was cheaper' was one of the economic drivers; don't forget Thatcher advocated 'market forces' so there was no gov pressure on coal burning power stations to use uk mined coal.
Steam trains were replaced by diesel because of cost - including logistical considerations.
Domestic consumption was small compared to industrial.
Deep mining had been in decline for decades and it's final demise in the uk was inevitable; it was only a question of when it would happen.
King Arthur accelerated that process.
5000 miners in t shirts vs 5000 police in full riot gear with horses and batons but people believe the miners were the ones looking for trouble . outofbreath the lack of need for coal was more to do with government nuclear subsidies and a policy of buying cheap foreign coal rather than locally mined stuff to fire power stations not so much the general public switching to different fuel for their central heating .
@wingnuts: +1 for John Humphrys' comment about questioning 'authority' which only exists because of the democratic structures which we, the public, support.
We, the public, also appoint/endorse those who seek authority; that should never be forgotten.
Nothing has changed strikers still seen as scummies out to destroy civilisation according to the press and those in power
Nope. Just out to bring down the government of the day and replace it with a willing bunch of fellow-travelling apparatchicks, according to their formost leader...
There were thugs on both sides; equally there were good guys on both sides.
This.
I was at school at the time in a non mining area, so it passed me by. I now live on the edge of the old East Midlands mining areas, and you can see the desolation the loss of the pits has caused*. I've also met plenty of people involved on both sides, and it has to be said, it was a minority on both sides who were stoking the trouble.
One of my colleagues at work is a former Met officer who met his wife up here while policing the strike, which must have been tough on both of them.
*Mind you, quite a few people I know are glad that the pits went, as they were the only jobs in the area and it was hard and dangerous work.
Outofbreath, are you SERIOUSLY trying to suggest that the events and the outcome were created by *choke* market forces?!?!
Correlation doesn't prove causality but the "demand for coal" graph and the "Uk Coal output graph" do seem to decline in unison between 1900 and today. Could be coincidence, of course. 😀
I am not wanting to see anyone in particular being prosecuted for fighting each other at Orgreave it has never been questioned that the miners gave as good as they got and on many other locations probably did worse. Its about govt collusion and falsifying evidence that we now accept as acceptable apparently.
frankconway - MemberThere were thugs on both sides; equally there were good guys on both sides.
Yah, but the thing is, one side was the [i]police[/i]. We employ them to deal with other thugs. If we can't hold them to higher standards, they're not the police any more.
b r - you can see it as me agreeing with you for once !
Of course Mrs T wanted to import coal and switch electricity production to a mix of oil / nuclear / coal - I imagine like my staunch Labour parents she was truely ****ed off by miners holding the country to ransom by cutting off the electricity
As others have also asked where was Labour on this issue from 1997 to 2010 ?
without an inquiry this will just fester away, more resentment, more bitterness and division in our society, our government seems to be expert at fostering this
@northwind; 'If we can't hold them to higher standards, they're not the police any more'.
Totally agree with your statement - in principle - but the police have never been consistently held to a higher standard.
I don't know if police stations still have 'police clubs' - no, not clubs to assault miners - but bars with snooker table and darts; I've been in a handful of them and back in the good old day a group of coppers on the sauce on their own territory was an unsettling experience.
They certainly existed when Orgreave happened.
As others have also asked where was Labour on this issue from 1997 to 2010 ?
I certainly don't share your politics Jamba.......but I agree - this is a question which needs answering.
Why did Labour do nothing?
It doesn't seem fair to blame the Right without questioning why the Left did so little when they had the chance..
This is hardly the only problem that the last Labour government didn't address when it had the chance.
This is hardly the only problem that the last Labour government didn't address when it had the chance.
Y'know, but y'know, LOOK OVER THERE! LET'S BAN HUNTING! NASTY TOFFS! LOOK! Y'know, I'm a pretty straight kind of guy, y'know.
@mrleb I think at one stage our politics would have been fairly closely aligned. Over the years mine have shifted partly having lived in US and Singapore and partly having come to the conclusion that so much of Government spending is mismanaged and misdirected.
without an inquiry this will just fester away, more resentment, more bitterness and division in our society,
Or people could just present their evidence and get guilty policemen charged and prosecuted.
You don't need an inquiry for that, it would be a pointless red herring.
Seriously, specifically what question do people want answered that hasn't already been answered?
You seem to be seriously struggling with the concept of democratic accountability
Not to mention how the guilty, in positions of power, use the system to make sure they remain exempt from it, and thus place themselves above the law
So is what I read correct ? All prosecutions failed as the courts rejected the Police Evidence ? If that's the case I can see why Labour didn't take the inquiry angle further as it looks too political. No false prosecutions ?
You seem to be seriously struggling with the concept of democratic accountability
And you seem to be seriously struggling with the concept of the police having an [b]absolute[/b] duty to prevent a breach of the peace by arrest or any other action necessary - in this the police aren't democratically accountable, they act in service of the crown.
"Not to mention how the guilty, in positions of power, use the system to make sure they remain exempt from it, and thus place themselves above the law"
Huh? You're arguing to let the guilty off by having an lengthy inquiry which, as you've already pointed out, will discover nothing new.
I'm saying use the evidence you want discussed at the inquiry and use it to get actual convictions instead.
And you seem to be seriously struggling with the concept of the police having an absolute duty to prevent a breach of the peace by arrest or any other action necessary
..... within the law.
You missed that bit.
If you don't have your statement quantified by those 3 words, then there is no law really other than what the state decrees, and we're into Judge Dredd territory.
You'd love that, wouldn't you? 'Cleaning the Streets' and all that shit?
Are you actually Kelvin Mackenzie?
Or maybe you're Judge Dredd 😯
So is what I read correct ? All prosecutions failed as the courts rejected the Police Evidence ? If that's the case I can see why Labour didn't take the inquiry angle further as it looks too political. No false prosecutions ?
To be honest the rejection of the police evidence should have triggered a thorough clean out , the principle should always be that it's the cover up you get nailed for not the cock up. Fabrication of evidence has to be culturally toxic or policing by consent will die
@ninfan: 'concept of the police having an absolute duty and power to prevent a breach of the peace by arrest or any other action necessary.'
You should qualify that statement by adding '.....within reason' otherwise you are suggesting the police do as they see fit to prevent a breach of the peace; is that your view?
Regrettably the police are now rarely to be seen on the streets - other than dealing with the pissed up/doped up getting out of hand in city centres from thursday to saturday, evenings only, so as for dealing with breach of the peace outside of city centres?
I know that's OT but largely invisible policing does not provide any feeling of safety or security.
Having said that - triple my salary and I still wouldn't join the force.
..... within the law.You missed that bit.
No, the power to maintain the peace is, at common law, completely unfettered as long as the steps are seen as necessary and proportionate - as it is a direct exercise of the crown perogative. This is a fascinating area of constitutional law, but, for example shows why the peterloo massacre was legal, and why both civil and criminal charges against members of the Manchester Yeomanry were dismissed.
You should qualify that statement by adding '.....within reason' otherwise you are suggesting the police do as they see fit to prevent a breach of the peace; is that your view?
Any and all steps seen as necessary and proportionate in order to prevent an imminent or ongoing breach of the peace.
Nice contemporary reference there. You're using the Peterloo Massacre to justify refusing democratic scrutiny of the police over Orgreave?
You really couldn't make it up
Principles are entirely the same - as they were in London a couple of years back.
What's it like, being you?
Who defines necessary and proportionate?
Who implements crown prerogative?
Hold on chaps - just calling her maj to talk this through.........
Politician? Police commander on the ground? silver/gold/platinum commander?
As for Peterloo and Manchester Yeomanry - I would like to think that democratic principles have evolved a little since then.
Can't avoid thinking that some of this evening's posts have been by jacob rees-mogg in his 4 poster bed wearing double breasted pyjamas while he imagines halcyon days - which never existed.
Now the really bad news - keith vazeline has been elected to the justice select committee.
Ninfan do you honestly think a modern court would accept hacking down protesters with sabers was necessary and propitiate ?
Pretty disappointing (i.e. disgraceful)
Two very different narratives, and some compelling info suggesting that the police action was planned rather than reactive.
An inquiry would have / should have been set up to:
1. Establish an accurate timeline for the events of the day, incl. police command decisions etc
2. Establish whether political control was exerted / appropriate.
Radio 4 yesterday suggested that S Yorks Police didn't want to deploy dog and mounted units, but Thatcher directly intervened.
Norman Tebbitt also gave a very clear reason why an inquiry would be appropriate. In his welcoming the decision not to hold an inquiry he stated that the police behaved, in the main, appropriately. Given the controversial nature of Orgreave, it is not appropriate for such sweeping statements to stand as the record.
Let's establish what happened - or for this stating that an inquiry is unnecessary, then release the cabinet papers that currently have an 80 year release period on them...
Rkk01 - spot on.
Taking back "con"trol
On topic , rather than the historical diversion about the use of armed force and a biddable justice system to crush a popular peaceful movement for political reform, I can't really see any great goal in pursuing criminal prosecutions of the officers on the ground and in court who were essentially following orders . However some inquiry as to his and why those orders were given and whether the separation of power between the police and the government was eroded I would also like to know how the BBC got away with editing news footage to reorder events to make a more compellingly narrative .
But if anything by way of police corruption truely needs an investigation it would be the battle of the beanfield and its aftermath.
Radio 4 yesterday suggested that S Yorks Police didn't want to deploy dog and mounted units, but Thatcher directly intervened.
I think this is the rub. We all know from Hillsborough that the South Yorkshire Police were a law unto themselves. Utterly corrupt, and self-serving, and employed the fabrication of evidence to fit people up as routine and relied on violence and intimidation.
What we suspect, with some very good reasons, is that they were, at the very least, tipped the nod from the very top of government, for their disproportionately violent conduct and subsequent manufacturing of evidence on an industrial scale.
If a government is effectively using a militarised police force (policing by consent anyone?) as a paramilitary militia, to crush dissent from an inconvenient portion of the civilian population, for its own political ends, then I think we have the right to know about that. How deep did that collusion go?
Lets be honest... if that was happening in a South American, Middle Eastern or African nation, we'd be loftily denouncing them as tinpot dictatorships
Good to see Andy Burnham giving interviews suggesting some kind of cover up.
If only we'd had a Labour government in power since the events originally happened - they could establish a public enquiry.
We all know Tony Blair was just a Tory in disguise, so it's hardly surprising.
Things have changed, since the D-Ream days, Hillsborough investigation has since proved that the police in question were endemically corrupt and were in collision with the Tories of the day.
Rudd's decision will just foster more resentment
Good to see Andy Burnham giving interviews suggesting some kind of cover up.
If only we'd had a Labour government in power since the events originally happened - they could establish a public enquiry.
Yup. What has Corbyn said ? It doesn't seem as though he gives a toss never mind making it party policy to hold an inquiry.
Until the leader of the Labour Party or indeed any Shadow Cabinet Minister can be bothered to make a statement that it will be Party Policy to hold an inquiry if elected we shall assume they don't think one in necessary or desirable. I see Tony Blair was a Red Tory well Corbyn appears no different on this issue
We don't have problems like Ogreave now (ie thousands of stikers tirning ip to blockade another site - determined to make trouble and forcing the Police to have a responce) as we don't allow secodnary picketing. Problem largely solved. In fact in realtiy problem solved completely.
@kimbers the political agenda in your post is partly why the call for an inquiry has failed. Take it up with the Labour Party although I'd say don't hold your breath as they don't seem interested at all. Perhaps it's because the NUM burnt all their bridges with Labour, even with Corbyn (no mines in Islington) ?
Rudd's decision will just foster more resentment
And there's the nub.
What more is there to learn from Orgreave? Laws were broken, power was abused, anarchy briefly took over and two sides threw (literally) all they could at each other. Probable that people have evaded justice on both sides, but what is the benefit of throwing a few old blokes in the clink for a few years?
Isn't a better question - have we moved on enough, to repeat the same thing happening again? Have we reviewed the laws (yes, partly), are there better checks to avoid the abuse of power (yes, partly), have we avoided anarchy on the streets (ditto) and are the same parties active in the current environment (not really)?
So where do you go on this.....? I cannot see the hard-entrenched views in the rights and wrongs of this appalling spectacle being altered, see ^
Time to move on, or is that sweeping a problem under the carpet. Who knows? Should we care?
Yup. What has Corbyn said ? It doesn't seem as though he gives a toss never mind making it party policy to hold an inquiry.
[url= http://labourlist.org/2016/10/corbyn-labour-will-not-give-up-the-fight-for-orgreave-justice/ ]Do try and keep up, from wherever jambaland is this week[/url]
not being one to usually rush to his defence, but a few months ago he was being accused of 'endlessly banging on' about Orgreave, when he demanded an enquiry at PMQ's
So which is it?
Perhaps you should also remember David Wilkie as an example of the levels of violence that the strikers were prepared to go to.
Man in the middle is my friend Jason, he grew up without a father because striking miners threw a concrete block through his taxi's window. They were convicted of murder but sentence was reduced to manslaughter on appeal. The appeal was based on the judges summing up and is felt by many to be "convienient". Jason accepts this because at some point the bitterness and hatred that was the miners strike has to end.
[URL= http://i754.photobucket.com/albums/xx187/taxi25/Mobile%20Uploads/13320946_10206480062306623_2324845430510502861_o-1-1_zpsg2jypebe.jp g" target="_blank">
http://i754.photobucket.com/albums/xx187/taxi25/Mobile%20Uploads/13320946_10206480062306623_2324845430510502861_o-1-1_zpsg2jypebe.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]
Growing up in the Valleys I am very torn on this subject, loathe Thatcher and what she did and stood for but have similar feelings about Scargill, for years on the baths at Six Bells was written "Ken Jones is a Scab" always felt really sorry for him and his family.
I know a haulage contractor who made millions running convoys carrying coal to Didcot, red diesel, no tax or insurance on the wagons, no hours logs all had a blind eye turned by South Wales Police.
Worked with an ex Met policeman who was at Orgreave, he used to tell a story about Gauntlet Bill,who was a miner who had big handlebar moustache and always wore motorcycle gauntlet gloves, he was noticeable. If nothing was going on and they were bored they would go and arrest Bill and it would all kick off. He said he was arrested daily for a few weeks, never did anything wrong just easily identifiable. He said the police loved the overtime and the fact they could do what they wanted, in hindsight he said he felt very uneasy about their orders and what they did. He did say that the rumour that the army was involved wasn't true but he did say a lot of MI5 and Mi6 were around taking details of people etc.
What more is there to learn from Orgreave? Laws were broken, power was abused, anarchy briefly took over and two sides threw (literally) all they could at each other. Probable that people have evaded justice on both sides, but what is the benefit of throwing a few old blokes in the clink for a few years?
Both sides were not equal though, and should not be treated as such. Authority comes with responsibilities, responsibilities that cannot be smashed aside in an orgy of violence.
The mistakes of the past will keep repeating if they are not properly addressed, even in recent years we see too many times the police expecting to lie, cheat and abuse their power with impunity. This behaviour has to be driven out of the force and their masters if we are to have fair and reasonable justice.