[Closed] Orgreave

The battle of Orgreave was emblematic of the constant struggle between the working classes and the establishment. The myth of unions becoming 'too powerful' is oft peddled to create an illusion of morality for the establishment, who need a docile, subservient workforce to ensure their own continued power and control over society. I personally have no problem with strong trade unions representing the needs of the vast majority of people, 'overthrowing' a government mired in the stench of elitist privilege. Thatcher simply had to crush any dissent, in order to maintain establishment power, so corrupted and perverted the office of state to which she had been elected to serve [i]all[/i] the people off the uK, not just an elite group. It's unsurprising that a tory government would not allow any inquiry into an event that their predecessors manipulated and exacerbated in order to maintain political power.

Had Orgreave happened in 2016, instead of 1984, then with the proliferation of information via social media would mean that the official government line could not now be trotted out the way it was back then; there would be a counter to the mainstream media coverage, which would make people question and doubt what ever bullshit the government/police etc would come up with.

The inevitability of economic cycles mean that we are now seeing the rise of trade unions once more, as a reaction against tory ideology and wilful demonisation of the poor. Recent rulings regarding Deliveroo and Uber workers, supported by trade unions, are indicative of the fact the tories have pushed just a bit too far, and people are starting to push back.

I wonder where the next Orgreave will be...

Just leave this thought with you

Around 6.5 million employees in the UK were trade union members in 2015. The level of overall union members was broadly unchanged from 2014, with a non-statistically significant increase of 36,000 over the year (a 0.6% increase). Current membership levels are well below the peak of over 13 million in 1979.
The number of UK employees increased between 2014 and 2015. As a result, the proportion of employees who were trade union members fell slightly to 24.7% in 2015, from 25.0% in 2014. This is the lowest rate of trade union membership recorded since 1995. Over this period, the proportion of employees who were trade union members in the UK has decreased 7.7 percentage points, from 32.4% in 1995.

Feel free to use/misuse/abuse 😉

The myth of unions becoming 'too powerful' is oft peddled to create an illusion of morality for the establishment, who need a docile, subservient workforce to ensure their own continued power and control over society. I personally have no problem with strong trade unions representing the needs of the vast majority of people, 'overthrowing' a government mired in the stench of elitist privilege.

Very well said.

@binners perhaps you could use your graphic skills to produce a Jamabland logo 🙂

His press office have called that in from wherever he is. He certainly wasn't in the Commons and having seen hours of news footage yesterday I didn't see him at all. I see you linked to a Labour press release and a few twitter quotes - that sums up the impact of his "statement". If he can't be bothered to turn up why shouod they cover him ?

He is leader now he can make it an election promise. Action not words.

Taxi and Pigface thanks for sharing, no doubt it was a bleak period in our recent history.

When a group of any kind including trade unionists are trying to destabilise a Government they should expect to draw the attention of the Police and Security services.

"Just leave this thought with you"

You are aware that many unions represent people who aren't members, aren't you?

Oh no, you're not. Sorry, my mistake.

Oh look, you've used government figures to try to argue a point. How clever. I keep trying to tell you not to rely purely on statistics when analysing a situation, as statistics can be easily manipulated, but you appear incapable of doing so.

Tell you what; a bit of simple googling will reveal that trade union membership is up year on year. Off you go. See what you can learn.

I dont see the point of an enquiry into whether copper A or miner B hit some one when they shouldnt have done or not is going to acheive anything.

The important part, and why there is no inquiry IMHO, is because of the role of the government, ministers and PM. What they did or didnt do, what they did or didnt tell the police to do or what they would get away with

Never let facts get in the way of a good story clod - on you go....(little hint try comparing absolute numbers versus the overall labour force, if you want to make a serious point)

But lets not derail a good Orgreave thread. Lots to rant about there on all sides re one of the more inglorious episodes of our modern history

Bleak isn't the word for it, it was a strange time to grow up, the troubles in Ireland, Thatcher and her henchmen, Protect and Survive, we had a lot of fun but it was worse than bleak.

The loss of coal had a devastating effect on where I grew up. To say it's never recovered is maybe to much but a few generations were just thrown away.

[img] [/img]

"Never let facts get in the way of a good story clod - on you go...."

Unsurprisingly, you have **** all intelligent to say, when actually challenged. Funny that, eh? 🙄

"When a group of any kind including trade unionists are trying to destabilise a Government they should expect to draw the attention of the Police and Security services."

Obviously. I don't think they should expect the police force, with it's duty to 'uphold law and order and prevent a breach of the peace' to attack them in order to crush any political dissent though, and act as a militia for any government. Which is what happened.

As for why didn't Labour order an enquiry when in government, well, I think one poster has already given us the answer to that:

"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."

Banning toff hunting is something I'd oppose. I think it should be positively encouraged, even mandatory. 😀

Unsurprisingly, you have **** all intelligent to say, when actually challenged. Funny that, eh?

There is nothing remotely challenging in pointing out that you have said something that is factually incorrect clod.

"There is nothing remotely challenging in pointing out that you have said something that is factually incorrect clod."

Sigh.

Factually incorrect, you say? Ok, let's use some statistics:

[i]THE DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS, Innovation and Skills’ (BIS) latest Trade Union Membership Statistical Bulletin, which tracks union membership, and density across the UK does not make easy reading. [b]The figures for 2015 show a mixed picture with a welcome increase of 36,000 members between 2014 and 2015[/b] – but given the growth in total number of people in employment, union density has fallen slightly to 24.7%.

[b]Membership in the private sector increased for the fifth successive year[/b] but overall union density declined to 13.9%. Public sector union density increased slightly to 54.8%. The report shows that 43% of employees are employed in a workplace where a trade union is present – providing opportunities for unions to mount ‘in-fill’ or ‘100%’ organising campaigns.[/i]

Thanks.

Care to go and find some figures regarding union membership vs non-membership and rates of pay? Should keep you busy for a few minutes. Off you go.

The unions had to be smashed and that's what Thatcher did for Britain.

The government doesn't want to open the door to claims for "compo" so they will string it out until everybody involved is dead.

Strong trade unions are the nightmare of an elitist establishment, as they pose a significant opposition to elitist political ideology; i.e., rule of the many by the few, with the few getting the lions share of the profits, and throwing a few scraps to the proles every once in a while (right to buy, easy credit, tax breaks etc). Many within the elite simply cannot entertain any idea of greater economic equality and democratic freedom, so will pull out all the stops to ensure they remain in power. This invariably means crushing trade unions, who have historically gained better pay and working conditions, better healthcare and social welfare, and myriad other benefits the elite enjoy but don't want the proles to have. Within a capitalist system, strong trade unions will always be a thorn in the side of the elite.

Thatcher did a very good job of smashing and demonising trade unions, as evidenced by several opinions on here. If people can get their heads out of the sand, they'll see that strong trade unions, and greater social cohesion, will be the only way out of the mess the tories have left us in.

Thank you for posting proof of what I said.

[tbf, I do appreciate the concept of density/use of term might be a tad confusing]

... given the growth in total number of people in employment, union density has fallen slightly to 24.7%..... overall union density declined to 13.9%

Your argument is like saying my pay has gone up by 2% while inflation has gone up by 5%, so I am better off!

Thatcher did a very good job of smashing and demonising trade unions, as evidenced by several opinions on here. If people can get their heads out of the sand, they'll see that strong trade unions, and greater social cohesion, will be the only way out of the mess the tories have left us in.

I agree but would also say that a lot of Trade Union leaders have acted pretty poorly. Scargill being the main offender.

I think Bob Crow was a brilliant Trade Union leader, that will cause some of the right winger's to have convulsions 😆

"Thank you for posting proof of what I said."

You've claimed I was 'factually incorrect'. The statistics I've provided conflict with the ones you have. The main thrust of your argument was to counter my claim that unions are rising once more. Now, it's pretty clear you have very little if any knowledge of proper trade unions, beyond whatever you might read in your DM or T'Graph etc. And you know yourself, with your love of statistics, that you simply cannot argue against the fact that trade unions are an overall positive thing for the majority of workers. Fact. The weakness in many of your arguments, is that you spend all your time bogged down in supposed 'statistical data', which you will know yourself, is potentially and often flawed anyway. And often doesn't tell the whole story at all. You really need to get out more, and gain experience outside of your social bubble, and start to try and understand the society in which you live, because it's quite obvious from reading your posts on here, you are woefully naive and often ignorant in that regard. No offence, I hope you take this constructive criticism on board, for your own benefit.

1. you were

2. they dont - they confirm

3. I do - they play an excellent role in protecting the rights of workers including my own experience with family members

anyway back to the topic - Owen Jones managed a whole article today on Orgreave without reference the The Establishment

I claimed 'unions are on the rise'. Increased membership confirms this. Trying to wiffle on about 'density' etc is just nonsense and you know it. You've confirmed nothing but your own naiveté about the subject of unions.

"they play an excellent role in protecting the rights of workers"

Excellent. So you agree with me. Good lad. Took you a while, but glad you got there in the end.

"Owen Jones"

Oh good god. Really? 😆

You are good value for money, THM, I'll give you that. 😉

While you have confirmed that you do not understand that trade union membership within the labour market is continuing to fall. Given the importance that we both place on their role, I am surprised by the level of your - whats your word? - naivete about the subject

You are good value for money

Thank you, I look forward to being able to returning the complement at some stage

😆

If you had any self-awareness, I'm sure you'd laugh at yourself. But please, do carry on. You're entertaining, if nothing else.

And one day, just maybe, you'll actually learn to understand what others are actually saying. Rather than having to rely on some fictitious narrative in your own head. Something for you to look forward to then. 😉

You are aware that many unions represent people who aren't members, aren't you?

Oh for the halcyon days of the closed shop, eh comrade? Something else the evil Tories banned.

Clod's view: we are now seeing the rise of trade unions

My facts: As a result, the proportion of employees who were trade union members fell slightly to 24.7% in 2015, from 25.0% in 2014. This is the lowest rate of trade union membership recorded since 1995.

Clod's supporting facts: given the growth in total number of people in employment, union density has fallen slightly to 24.7%....but overall union density declined to 13.9%.

Clod's conclusion: one of us is relying on a fictitious narrative in our heads

And the answer is....?

"Clod's conclusion: one of us is relying on a fictitious narrative in our heads"

Yes, you are. I claimed the unions are on the rise, with greater membership figures. A fact even you can't distort. You're wiffling on about 'density', to prove some point I doubt even you are really sure of. I think you're desperately trying to suggest that the unions are on the decline, but I'm not sure. whatever, you're intent on arguing and being 'right'. Pretty pathetic really. But if that's your only outlet for whatever it is you need to get off your chest, then I suppose I should be a little more sympathetic.

"Clod's view: we are now seeing the rise of trade unions"

They are growing and supporting increasing numbers of people. Fact. I get a lot of my info from people who are actually actively involved in trade unions, some at very high level. Not from lists of 'statistics'. Real people, not just numbers.

The 'fictional narrative' in your head, is based on your acceptance of and adherence to right-wing rhetoric and ideology. If you feel more comfortable within that framework, fine. But please don't think that you're in any way genuinely knowledgeable or enlightened about matters regarding society. Accept your limits, and the need to carry on learning. It's a much less frustrating journey.

Wow, you may be wrong but at least you are persistent. But here's a tip - try not to prejudge what reference points other people have, it leads you down a cul-de-sac and runs the risk of making you look a littlle silly.

It's requires only a modicum of thought, to understand that the role of unions is not on the rise as you claim. They CONTINUE to represent a SMALER number of people in work ie, their role is diminishing. If you genuinely care, try to understand why that might be and then how you might change it.

BTW. Anecdote is a poor substitute for fact. Here's what some real union people are saying this month FYI

But a steady procession of statistics showing the decline in union membership and collective bargaining coverage, along with data and analysis that indicate how technology, hollowing out and fragmentation are undermining the security and power of working people, are a grim warning that outside of the comfort zones in which membership is still common (but which aren’t necessarily that comfortable anymore anyway) [b]we are struggling for our very existence.  [/b]

Of course we do take some solace from the real difference our unions make in thousands of workplaces everyday and our ability to secure important victories and impose a degree of justice  upon some of the UK’s worst employers.  At the end of the day, however, current conditions and the bigger picture must compel us to come back to a question posed over a decade ago by a couple of industrial relations academics as they contemplated the union role in the 21st century: is the continued existence of the institution of the trade union vital to the working of a fair and just society, or just plain old nostalgia?

Lol.
Clod maintains that because the total number of people in unions has risen they are on the up. Thnm agrees but as far more of the new workers don't join a union ( hence the % drop ) he reckons that unions are in decline.
I'd say a reasonable person might agree with both positions. So I'll say your both right, how about you leave it at that 😀

Good idea, but one simple and final analogy as clod failed to grasp the inflation one:

In 1995, a school had 100 pupils - 33 played football, 67 did not
At the end of 2014, the school had 180 pupils - 48 played football, 132 did not
Today the school has 200 pupils - 50 play football, 150 do not

Which is "on the rise" - football or non-football?

(the choice of figures is deliberate)

"!'d say a reasonable person might agree with both positions. So I'll say your both right, how about you leave it at that"

😀

I have no problem with the fact that union 'density' is lower. If THM were honest, he'd be providing statistical analysis of why this is the case (such as more folk in part time as opposed to full time work, more zero hour contracts, more short-term employment positions, etc). But THM isn't interested in honesty. THM is only interested in defending tory ideology, without looking like he's defending tory ideology. He never does a very good job of this.

Otherwise, he wouldn't have spent the best part of a day trying to win an internet argument. 😆

Oh bless, he's gone and found one bit of text that he thinks supports his position. How sweet.

clod failed to grasp

I didn't, I just didn't respond to you, that's all. But feel free to twist it up in your own head, if that makes you feel better.

" They CONTINUE to represent a SMALER number of people in work"

😆

I do love it when it's too late for people to edit their mistakes.

which is on the rise - football or non-football clod?

[BTW you should have a problem with union density being lower, because it refutes you point and is at the centre of the struggle for existence. Anyone mention honesty?]

True - a long day in front of computer screens, but better than a long day in the pub by the looks of things

Looks like there's been a good old ding-dong going on in here along predictable lines 😆

If I can come at this from a nominally 'law and order' perspective - can someone please explain how the police should have policed this incident? I know S Yorks police were particularly bad from the 70s on, and some of the more extreme actions are not defensible, but a lot of the miners showed up looking for trouble. If it hadn't have been Orgreave on that particular date, wouldn't it just as likely have been somewhere else later (or the same place)?

What should the police have done?

Genuine question, although I know some will simply stay "run up the red flag and join the strikers". But if they were responsible for keeping law and order, and a large number of people gather with the intention of disorder, what can they do?

Genuine question, although I know some will simply stay "run up the red flag and join the strikers". But if they were responsible for keeping law and order, and a large number of people gather with the intention of disorder, what can they do?

and a large number of people gather with the intention of disorder, what can they do?

To be fair, I don't think anyone suggests that was the case.

They gathered with the intention of stopping wagons accessing the coking plant. Not just to protest about it, but to physically prevent the wagons getting in/out of the plant, many (though undoubtedly not all) were willing to use force to achieve that aim.

Your question remains pertinent though - what were the police supposed to do? allow mob rule?

Wait until the disorder starts and not start it themselves?

So, you don't accept that the 'peaceful protesters' were lobbing bricks then?

Not all of them of course, but it's childish to pretend that everyone on the miners side was sweet and innocent.

So, you don't accept that the 'peaceful protesters' were lobbing bricks then?

Maybe they were having difficulty picking them out from the breakdancing competitions

[img] [/img]

I know one policeman at this - he was delighted to be given the chance to crack a few miners heads. He went in with that attitude.

Maybe they were having difficulty picking them out from the breakdancing competitions

instead of singling out the few trouble makers at the start.

Wait until the disorder starts and not start it themselves?

Make your mind up

Thinking that plod weren't going in with attitude and the opportunity of a ruck is naive.

More fool the miners for giving them the perfect excuse by lobbing rocks at them then

Make your mind up

.

I know one policeman at this - he was delighted to be given the chance to crack a few miners heads. He went in with that attitude.

Same here...

And that acquaintance was bussed in from S Wales to S Yorks.

This is why an inquiry is needed. On the police side, Orgreave was a meticulously planned operation with pre-approved political sign off (and direct financial contribution from No. 10 for mounted and dog support, against the wishes of S Yorks police).

The officer I mentioned rose to a high position in the police before retiring - many will have similarly made senior rank. I'm not an advocate of a punitive witch hunt within the serving police, they were following orders. It's the deployments made, organisation, tactics and orders given and political involvement / strategy that requires an inquiry...

Why?

Because if we ever have the need to deploy a militia style force on UK streets in the future, we should expect that previous lessons had been learnt and that the subsequent analysis is open, clear and defensible. Orgreave is none of these

I'm with you rkk01. I'd even be happy(ish) to accept an inquiry with some sort of immunity from prosecution but a real expectation that elected and public servants have a far higher standard of behaviour that includes a clear warning understanding that there will be legal consequences in future.

"I'd even be happy(ish) to accept an inquiry with some sort of immunity from prosecution"

No prosecutions have come out of the latest Hillsborough Inquiry.

All the facts are out there, apart from Govt docs that won't be released for decades. If there's evidence good enough to get a conviction do that, if there's not an inquiry won't find anything new.

Orgreave was a meticulously planned operation with pre-approved political sign off

Of course it was - there was a deliberate planned operation to move all stocks of coke to S****horpe (to keep the steel works going) in as short a period as possible, rather than keeping on going with smaller shipments for weeks. The government (and the unions) knew that if the coke supplies stopped, then steel production would have to stop.

They had shed loads of police and lots of planning because British Steel had agreed to give the workers at Orgreave at least four days notice of a run down, so they knew that there would be mass protests when they came to move everything off site. The police were there to make sure that it happened in the face of the expected violence and intimidation.

FFS - The entire government response to the miners strike was planned in advance, they had spent three years building up stocks of coal at power stations in expectation of it, because they knew that the miners would try and do what they had been successful in doing so many times before, holding the country to ransom.

This time, they tried and lost.

Why so much hate Ninfan?

You seem quite angry about it.

Ninfan's last post doesn't look angry to me. Calm and factual.

"Calm and factual."

Ninfan's post is based on scant information available through mainstream media outlets, rather than evidence presented by all who were actually there, including people who were serving police officers. Historical revisionism is very easy, when the only narrative available is that from the 'official' sources.

As I said previously; the government could never cover up their crimes against society now, as they did at Orgreave.

"holding the country to ransom."

This is not 'factual', it is merely opinion. If one isn't a tory, one could just as easily take the view that the miners were desperately trying to stand up or the future of their communities and families, and the futures of all workers in the UK. Which is a lot closer to the truth...