- Orgreave Truth and Justice campaign Need Your Help This Is For The Miners
Who actually would benefit from dragging up the memories of 30 years ago and discussing it in public?
And your view on dragging up the illegal sexual activities of celebrities then?
Is it just criminal acts by coppers we should ignore?
The answer is the victims and justice – is that not obvious to you?
Neither side was angels.
You are meant to be defending the police not saying that both sides were criminals. Remind me again which lot were all found innocent at trial and received compensation from the police force.
Tootall told us this never gets mentioned – would you still like to defend this premise?
You could argue that the police are worst because they should be upholding the law,
Not only could you say that the law says it as well. You can view there code of conduct if you want which explains why this is the case. Something about honesty, integrity and upholding the law – that last bit is hard to do if you are breaking it FWIW
we are all responsible for upholding the law so you cannot reduce the actions carried out by the miners.
Its you who is doing this but for the coppers ie the miners were just as bad. If you want to charge the miners feel free. Shall I remind you again the charged miners were all acquitted and given compensation by the police.
Are you really ok if the police act as bad , or worse, than the criminals they are protecting us from?
Really are you ok with this?
The mining communities need to move on and look forward, not backwards. An inquiry would stop the moving forward for another decade or two.
Is some form of justice not required to enable the moving on process?Posted 4 years ago
sadmadalan – Member
Neither side was angels. You could argue that the police are worst because they should be upholding the law, but equally we are all responsible for upholding the law so you cannot reduce the actions carried out by the miners.
As Junkyard suggests, if this actually was the case, then you really need to explain how despite nearly 100 arrests not one single miner was convicted.
Can you do that ?Posted 4 years agomogrimMember
Junkyard – lazarus
I dont like top gear,F1,rugby or many other issues.
What I do is not read those threads rather than demand they be closed because I have no interest in the subject matter.
This. I don’t agree with all the opinions on this thread (it would be weird if I did!), but it was pretty obvious even before opening it what the content was going to be.Posted 4 years ago
Be a short thread with everyone just going OP + n if we all agreed
Both sides turned up for a riot, they got what they came for.
That would be illegal and we may wish to question why those tasked with protecting law and order turned up to break the law.
Again its not a defence or a denial
Was this line of “defence” not used in Hillsborough – they fans were rioting?
as ernie notes the absence of convictions and the compensation paid out would suggest your analysis that both sides turned up for a riot was not upheld by the courts and the police apologised with money yet no one has been held to account for the lawless that day.
Whomever you may wish to blame for this this is not a satisfactory outcome for justice.Posted 4 years agoMr WoppitMember
nealglover – Member
“Why do you want to go down there and join the niggers?”
I was interested to read about that so I Googled the quote.
Google search returns “1 Result”
It’s a quote from Elms that I saw whilst he was being interviewed as part of a TV documentary some years ago.
It seems beyond doubt that policing of public events and demonstrations in the 1980’s had become much like the CRS “crowd control” methods in Paris in 1968.
What they lacked was the “Roman Legions” military approach adopted by the French police plus the shields, batons and body armour they employed during the student riots. The attitude seemed well buffed to a high sheen, though.
Fortunately, the american experience culminating in the Kent State University murders did not translate to the U.K. at the time…Posted 4 years agowobbliscottMember
Scagilll was never in it for the good of the miners, he just wanted to bypass the rule of law and democracy and overthrow the government for his own selfish means and aims and he manipulated and used the miners as his vehicle to do this, whipped up a storm, called an illegal strike and Gift wrapped to Thatcher exactly what she wanted – a chance to take on and break the most powerful union at that time, and the rest is history. There are two sides to every story and from what I’ve seen from the footage both sides were giving as good as they got, and anyone who thinks either side was squeaky clean are either naive, prejudiced or just kidding themselves. No good will come out of this, we all know the police have been institutionally compromised in the past and they are in the process of being brought to account, but we have a new generation of police now who were kids or not even born when the miners strike was on and the people responsible have all long since moved on, lets press on with the real issues facing us.Posted 4 years agostumpyjonSubscriber
Yep, the invidual police officers were as much victims and instigators of the crimes as the miners. Those in power, Thatcher and Scargill, used and abused their foot troops to their own ends. War is not clean and orderly. As said it was 30 years ago, people from both sides should have been prosecuted but weren’t. The mining communities so need to move on and let their victim hood go. They probably won’t be happy with the outcome of any enquiry anyway as it won’t demonise the police and acquit the miners.Posted 4 years ago
SO as long as they dont kill anyone we should turn a blind eye to their behaviour?
from what I’ve seen from the footage both sides were giving as good as they got,
here that it is in picture form
So you have no problem with the police rioting then and breaking the law?
and anyone who thinks either side was squeaky clean are either naive, prejudiced or just kidding themselves.
FWIW in an example of public disobedience or rioting or direct action or whatever we wish to call it I expect one side to break the law and one side to uphold the law. I cannot get that upset that protesters/rioters/strikers/criminals are acting criminally [ though I dont approve generally] but I can get upset that the upholders of the law are acting like criminals. unlike some who seem to just want to ignore it as apparently this will make it all better.
I really dont understand why folk accept the police acted like criminals but dont want to hold them to account for it.
lets press on with the real issues facing us.
It is not an either or question.
*Posted 4 years agowobbliscottMember
Lack of convictions of miners? Just how in a crowd of thousands of angry miners are the police going to pick out individuals, accumulate the evidence and whitnesses needed to secure a conviction? It’s not surprising there were not many convictions. Their main aim was to keep law and order and enable miners who wanted to work to get to their work safely, not to pick out individuals and arrest them. I’m acknowledging the police were heavy handed, they always are in these situation, but some, probably a minority, of the miners were hardly peaceful and orderly, they were throwing Molotov cocktails, weilding bats and other weapons, caused alot of injuries to the Police too. Doesn’t justify some of the Polices’ actions.
People on both sides are human and get scared, angry and lose sight of their sensibilities. We see it in wars too, and individuals doing things that they wouldn’t ordinarily do or ordinarily condone. If the police were under orders to bash protestors then fair enough, but that wasn’t the case. For individual police officers that overstepped the mark, fair enough, they need to be rooted out and dealt with to the full extend of the Police disciplinary process and law. Was the guy wielding the truncheon above dealt with? He may very well have been. Did he even land the blow or was he just threatening? Was that photo from the miners strike at all? Photos have context too.Posted 4 years ago
Justice was not served well at Orgreave – that we know. But does a unilateral inquiry into the activities of one party serve us better? The “tragedy” of the whole episode is that you had two parties whose leadership was intent on confrontation (a pre-determined “battle” of wills and bodies in the end) and were BOTH prepared to ignore and ride-over the rule of law. Both sets of leaders should be ashamed of themselves as a result.
So that leads into the interesting debate about the morality of those “footsoldiers” involved. Is following the orders of others a legitimate defence? Does the obvious outrage that a miner/policeman would feel if one of his colleagues was hit my a baton/struck by a missile defend or excuse the wish for revenge? Isn’t the rule of law exactly designed to protect us all from the natural desire for revenge in these cases? Which leads onto JY’s points – does the fact that the police are charged with maintaining the rule of law make their (alleged?) transgressions and failure to do so any more reprehensible? Aren’t we all equally responsible for respecting the law?
The lack of convictions (on either side) is an interesting one when it is/was blatantly obvious that laws were broken on that day by many parties. Frankly that was an absurd outcome with two distasteful conclusions – (1) why were no correct convictions made successfully? (2) why did the police allegedly feel the need to distort the facts/lie in the cases that they bought and lost? The Rotherham Union account describes how the first injury on the day was a policeman who was hit in the face by a missile. There does not need to be any elaboration or exaggeration of facts. Or is that what happens with an alleged policy of random arrests?
FWIW, I find the second outcome the more disturbing. There seems to have been a culture at the time of cases where evidence was tampered with/made up etc. Was this simply laziness or was it deliberate attempts to pervert the course of justice. I expect that this meant that in some cases innocent people were wrongly accused and in others that guilty people were not convicted (not just at Orgreave BTW). Neither is a satisfactory outcome IMO.
So what in the end will be served here? If those that should be ashamed are not already, will they change? I doubt it. Will those who were the most guilty be prosecuted? I doubt it. Will we know more about inappropriate powers/abuse of the powers by the police? Possibly. Do we already know this and have steps been take to ensure that a repeat doesn’t happen? Yes. Will these things ever happen again? …….you decide!!!Posted 4 years agocrankboyMember
Was the guy wielding the truncheon above dealt with?…..no
Did he even land the blow or was he just threatening? ……..can’t recall but many landed.
Was that photo from the miners strike at all? …….yes
Photos have context too……yes which is why the police brought prosecutions based on news footage which reversed the order of events to make the miners look like the aggressors when in fact the cavalry charges were conducted into peaceful crowds and the miners “violence ” came after not before. The prosecutions went wrong when the police were forced to disclose their own videos which showed the true order of events.
The police tactics were modelled on the Roman legionary tactics down to shield walls and beating shields with batons to induce fear. They added agent provocateurs to penetrate the miners and push victims forward to the wall. The miners countered with a range of coal not dole badges with different colours handed out on different days to id police plants .Posted 4 years agocrankboyMember
So back to the campaign for a public inquiry. The miners were not convicted. The police were shown to be in the wrong and admitted as much by paying compensation . The history of the events is reasonably well udocumented. A public inquiry cannot convict any individual officer of any crime . So what is the point ?Posted 4 years ago
Was the guy wielding the truncheon above dealt with? NO
Did he even land the blow or was he just threatening? He is on a horse with a woman with her back to him tending to an injured man – why does he need to threaten her? What law is she breaking, what threat is she to him? is that force appropriate ?
He missed as she was pulled out the way by someone else out of shot – it was due to lack of effort/trying.
That is impossible to defend as it is a copper on horseback battoning a female with her back to him
Was that photo from the miners strike at all? Its from orgreave – why do you think I posted it 🙄
Which leads onto JY’s points – does the fact that the police are charged with maintaining the rule of law make their (alleged?) transgressions and failure to do so any more reprehensible?Aren’t we all equally responsible for respecting the law?
This is a pretty weak point that keeps getting made. Do you really think there is not a greater onus on those who uphold the law as a job to uphold the law? I suggest you look at the rules for coppers as they make it very clear.
Legally I am not permitted to get on horseback and charge folk with a big stick thwacking them, nor arrest them etc. that is why there is an even greater onus on them than on me. The rioters [ if they were] are behaving criminally – would you really expect the police to behave like rioters?how can you uphold the law of the land if you cannot personally uphold the law of the land?
Its like arguing that it is no more worrying that an accountant commits fraud as we all have a duty to uphold the law.
Its prima facie obvious what the concern is and I doubt anyone cannot see the reason.
To keep addressing the legitimate criticism of coppers by saying we all have is weak as there duty is greater for obvious reasons.
there transgressions are more worrying for obvious reasons
It is not the same thing at all.Posted 4 years ago
Justice – agree in principle but not in the case of a unilateral focus/context
Not covering things up – agree
Holding the responsible police and the responsible miners to account – agree
Learning lessons etc – agree
Sadly, many enquiries seem to spend a lot of money and time but miss the “so what” question. I fear the same here. Like Levenson, the terms of enquiry will (if this petition is successful) most likely be phrased in a way that prohibits the most important questions being asked.Posted 4 years ago
Junkyard – lazarus
Do you really think there is not a greater onus on those who uphold the law as a job to uphold the law?
Is a great question (rather than a “weak point” 😉 ) Hence I left it as such (I edited out the original “discuss…” in that para.) For sure, they have an onus. Is it greater? First thoughts – yes – but on further consideration – no, not necessarily….
I suggest you look at the rules for coppers as they make it very clear.
…I can look at their rules and those of any profession. Indeed I can look at the rules that we all live by. The result – we all equally have a responsibility to uphold the law IMO?Posted 4 years ago
Like Levenson, the terms of enquiry will (if this petition is successful) most likely be phrased in a way that prohibits the most important questions being asked.
First thoughts – yes – but on further consideration – no, not necessarily….
Why do i have the same responsibily as a Tesco till worker to work on
Lets look at this another way
on one hand we have a shoplifiter and on the other hand we have the employee working in the shop stealing.
Are these also both the same as they both have the same level of responsibility?
It seems to me pretty clear there is a difference
we all equally have a responsibility to uphold the law IMO?
What is your reason?Posted 4 years ago
you are wrong though 😉
Yes, they are both stealing (edit a different example – two people launder money. One is a highly paid trader in a bank, The other is a lower paid employer of the banking regulator. Which is more guilty? You decide which of the information supplied is or isn’t relevant)
Reason – to avoid anarchy (important for a libertarian!!)
Wrong – who knows? But fortunately, there are guidelines over and above the legal framework of the land that help to resolve these issues. Making reference to them on here is frowned upon though!!! 😉Posted 4 years agoEdukatorMember
There are plenty of current issues to get angry and wound up about that getting out and doing something might change. The British public has become defeatist/bullied into submission. Throwing oneself under the King’s horse or chaining oneself to railings just doesn’t happen anymore – perhaps because just going for a swim when the boat race is on earns you a jail term and people are so comfortable they won’t do anything that takes them out of their comfort zone..
The miners “lost” on any reasonable measure of winning and losing and the British people have lost their will to fight for what’s right and good. Politicians act with impunity because you let them. Do something!
It’s so much easier to argue about ancient history.Posted 4 years ago
THM you answered my question with a question and another scenario
This has not helped me understand your view.
Take the church then[ please 😉 ] – does the vicar/priest/father have to uphold the message of the Church over and above the flock ?
The answer would seem self evident.Posted 4 years ago
Yes, in my mind it is self evident. We are all equally responsible to uphold the law IMO. Wearing a uniform doesn’t alter that in any way. Nor does being an arbiter or upholder of the law. So in my “answer” earlier (!) both shoplifters are equally guilty in my mind. And the trader/regulator too are both guilty as in any one else involved in money laundering.
But this is a slight tangent anyway. I see v little merit in an actual enquiry. The police are held more accountable these days but remain far from perfect – who is. I doubt whether an expensive enquiry would add much to either out knowledge or our future well-being.
Re the church, I would expect that all will face their maker/judgment in exactly the same way without favour or otherwise. Hence if one chooses that as ones reference point, the debate really is “self-evident.”!!!Posted 4 years ago
I want to know why you think that as i already know what you think
I am four or so answers in and still no clearer as to your reason.
O one last one what about teachers – do they have a greater responsibility to educate than any one else?
Is that one self evident enough for you 😉
Given their position do different rules apply to them?
We both know the answer to that one as well 😉
Still giving up but I genuinely did not understand how you reached your view hence i asked.Posted 4 years ago
My reason is simple – on consideration, I believe that we all have equal responsibility to uphold the law. I stated that as a question at first and then repeated it as an opinion. It can’t be reduced any further IMO, but then again I tend to favour categorical rather than consequential answers to moral questions (albeit not exclusively).
Just had late lunch with my son and friend who are/have both studying/studied philosophy and ethics. They started the same way. Initial reaction was that the policeman had more responsibility than the average citizen. But within two minutes and a digression into Virtue Ethics and Aristotle, fireman and arson and headline acts at Reading tonight, they both changed their mind to more of the ” we all have a responsibility to be moral citizens” belief.
Still an interesting question. And then, assuming guilt on the part of some of the police. Who do you charge? The office wielding the baton, his boss, the government? All three!?!?
(no I don’t think that teachers have more responsibility to teach than anyone else. God forbid if that were the case! Our head makes the same point to parents at the start of every year!)Posted 4 years ago
The topic ‘Orgreave Truth and Justice campaign Need Your Help This Is For The Miners’ is closed to new replies.