'Battle of Orgreave' inquiry call.

[Maeght]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/16/newsid_2512000/2512469.stm

Miners jailed for murder

Just for balance sake. I make no judgment personally but think it is time to let the whole thing go.

Worth pointing out of course, but the actions of surely there is a difference between how the Police as supposed to act and how certain individuals act. The point is about how the Police Force were used - appearing to be,as was said, agents of the government of the time rather than independant upholders of the law.

[john]

Maeght

Try thinking laterally here.

The police are the accountable agents of the state, which directs finances and controls them, whether you like it or not.

In any case of enforcement there are winners and losers. Simplistically, the state takes away a drink drivers licence and society is pleased about that, the driver himself, his family, friends and even his employers may not be. It inconveniences them and maybe impacts harshly on them in financial terms too.

The striking miners were acting unofficially, there was never a ballot, and by no means all miners wanted to strike. Those that didn't were subjected to threats, intimidation, etc. See my earlier example of the murder for just one example, a quick search on the interweb thingy will find examples of working miners homes being damaged their families being threatened etc.

And who directed, financed and controlled the striking miners? No the state or society for sure. Pickets too (like the police) were bussed about and organised in the course of the dispute. There were rumours in abundance at the time that money was coming from places like Lybia and the Soviet Union. etc. who of course had no interest in looking after the best interests of British society, their reasons were in fact the opposite.

To who were the striking miners accountable, apart from themselves. Whose interests were they looking after apart from their own!

And of course given what we now know about pollution and global warming, would we now want to support the burning of coal?

Those around at the time might remember that when police tried to get hold of the minutes of meetings, details of accounts, etc. from the miners union they could not do so, which is why the rumours about financing etc. persist. Again look it up on the interweb thingy.

Policing costs, names of officers deployed, etc is still on record though.

An enquiry now might throw up some very interesting stuff which would worry the left wing at least as much as the police. Which is why I think it would be best to let it lie. 

[Hope]

That is easy to say from a comfortable armchair. Other people in other parts of this country and the world do not have that comfort.

And, of course, the strike by miners also adversely affected other people who were trying to earn much needed income. 

[Hope]

An enquiry now might throw up some very interesting stuff which would worry the left wing at least as much as the police. Which is why I think it would be best to let it lie.

Its exactly because it might throw up some interesting things about the left wing, especially when it is that very left-wing who are calling for the inquiry, that I think such an inquiry ought to go ahead.

[Maeght]

Maeght

Try thinking laterally here.

Thank you for your helpful advice  Your post isn't lateral thinking though really - just an alternative view.

The police are the accountable agents of the state, which directs finances and controls them, whether you like it or not.

They should not be agents of the Government of the day to enforce thier political ideals - they are there to uphold the law of the land.

In any case of enforcement there are winners and losers. Simplistically, the state takes away a drink drivers licence and society is pleased about that, the driver himself, his family, friends and even his employers may not be. It inconveniences them and maybe impacts harshly on them in financial terms too.

Not the same thing. You seem to be referring to the decision to close the mines. That is not what I am referring to but rather the responses and actions taken by police regarding striking miners and pickets. A different thing.

[quote}The striking miners were acting unofficially, there was never a ballot, and by no means all miners wanted to strike.[/quote]

It was official in that it was called for by the NUM. There wasn't a National ballot but there wasn't a requirement for one I believe. I agree that not all miners wanted to strike though and in some areas voted locally not to.

Those that didn't were subjected to threats, intimidation, etc. See my earlier example of the murder for just one example, a quick search on the interweb thingy will find examples of working miners homes being damaged their families being threatened etc.

Agreed.

And who directed, financed and controlled the striking miners? No the state or society for sure. Pickets too (like the police) were bussed about and organised in the course of the dispute. There were rumours in abundance at the time that money was coming from places like Lybia and the Soviet Union. etc. who of course had no interest in looking after the best interests of British society, their reasons were in fact the opposite.

Lots of rumours of course and some may be true. So this ascpect should have been addressed rather than the Police being used to take the 'battle' to the miners.

To who were the striking miners accountable, apart from themselves. Whose interests were they looking after apart from their own!

Many saw that they were fighting for the future of their communities and there children.

And of course given what we now know about pollution and global warming, would we now want to support the burning of coal?

That wasn't an issue then and not really relevant to the Police action.

Those around at the time might remember that when police tried to get hold of the minutes of meetings, details of accounts, etc. from the miners union they could not do so, which is why the rumours about financing etc. persist. Again look it up on the interweb thingy.

Did they take this to court? How did they try to get hold of them?

Policing costs, names of officers deployed, etc is still on record though.

As they should be.

An enquiry now might throw up some very interesting stuff which would worry the left wing at least as much as the police. Which is why I think it would be best to let it lie.

It might also throw up some interesting stuff about MI5 infiltration and efforts on the right wing to push for trouble to discredit the unions.

The whole situation around the Miners strike is complex and in no way am I or have I attempted to present the Miners as being whiter than white and the Police to be the baddies. The point throughout this is as to whether the actions of the Police crossed the line and that they became an agent of the government to take the battle to the Miners on their behalf rather than concentrating on upholding the law. Much of your post doesn't really adress that in my view.

[Bubbles]

Is it?

What are your reasons for stating this?

Are they based on any evidence?

On my brief brush with this issue when I was living in Nottingham in the 80's the police were very heavy handed even with those of us not directly linked to the strike.

When travelling to see my Mum who lived in Mansfield 15 miles from Nottingham we were subjected to road blocks, questioning of where we were going, and your reasons for going there; these were not imo the hallmarks of a free democracy. It did feel rather as if one had wandered into Eastern Europe.

The police over-used their powers whatever the supposed provocation was.

Yes I remember that too.

The police stopping people going about their law abiding business.

I think it was actually illegal for them to do that, but they did it anyway.

It might be good to pursue just to highlight that one issue.

In case it were to happen again, and I thought it was an abuse of power by the police.

[Hope]

They should not be agents of the Government of the day to enforce thier political ideals - they are there to uphold the law of the land.

Often, the former and the latter coincide, Maeght.

[Maeght]

Often, the former and the latter coincide, Maeght.

If they do then fine, if they don't then they should stick to upholding the law.

[Hope]

If they do then fine, if they don't then they should stick to upholding the law.

Can you give me any examples of when they didn't coincide from, say, the last 30 years?

[Shaker]

Can you give me any examples of when they didn't coincide from, say, the last 30 years?

I can give you two. The miners' strike currently under discussion, and the Battle of the Beanfield a little later.

[Hope]

I can give you two. The miners' strike currently under discussion, and the Battle of the Beanfield a little later.

If I remember correctly, the police were enforcing a High Court injunction in the latter - suggesting that the police action coincided with their role as upholders of the law of the land.  As for the events during the miners' strike a number of people I know, who played prominent parts in ther strike to the extent that thyey were arrested and found guilty of affray and various other things have told me that the police, though heavy handed very often, were more often than not fulfilling their role of upholding the law - as far as enabling workers who weren't striking, to go to work.  Not something that the strikers were too keen on, but perfectly legal.

[Shaker]

Which is all very nice and anecdotal, but not a rebuttal much less a refutation of Maeght's point that the police: "... should not be agents of the Government of the day to enforce thier political ideals," which in both of the examples I've mentioned to me they plainly and abjectly were.

[Hope]

Which is all very nice and anecdotal, but not a rebuttal much less a refutation of Maeght's point that the police: "... should not be agents of the Government of the day to enforce thier political ideals," which in both of the examples I've mentioned to me they plainly and abjectly were.

There are many who regard the 'plainly and abjectly were' bit as questionable, including some of those who were on the other side of the argument.

[Maeght]

Can you give me any examples of when they didn't coincide from, say, the last 30 years?

Can you? You suggested the often coincide, suggesting they don't always.

I would say that the level of violence shown by the Police at Orgreave, during the mounted charge for example, suggests that they were 'taking the fight' to the miners and looking to teach them a lesson. The level of violence was greater I think than was needed to prevent the obstruction of the lorries and the like. 93 people were arrested but none were found guilty in court I believe. A number of lawsuits were brought against Police officers for assault and compensation and legal costs were paid by the police force. there is apparently evidence of attempts by the police to coordinate their statements to try to ensure that miners were charged with rioting.

I understand that times were difficult and that there were bad apples on both sides but surely we should expect the police, as a whole, to behave better than that.

[Hope]

I understand that times were difficult and that there were bad apples on both sides but surely we should expect the police, as a whole, to behave better than that.

They are but human; and suffer from the same weaknesses and and faults as any other humans.

As I pointed out when I started this thread, I was not in the UK during much of the strike and Orgreave occurred about a month before I returned so all that I have discovered has been through eye-witness accounts from a few miners I know, the media and press releases from groups such as the NUM and the Orgreave Truth and Justice group.  The comments I have heard from miners who were there suggest that the claims of the NUM, especially, overstate the case to their own advantage.  That isn't to say that there wasn't police misconduct (we only have to look at Hillsborough and more recent police behaviour to appreciate that).

[Maeght]

They are but human; and suffer from the same weaknesses and and faults as any other humans.

Absolutely, but I'm not referring to individuals so much as the force as a whole and the way it was used.

As I pointed out when I started this thread, I was not in the UK during much of the strike and Orgreave occurred about a month before I returned so all that I have discovered has been through eye-witness accounts from a few miners I know, the media and press releases from groups such as the NUM and the Orgreave Truth and Justice group.  The comments I have heard from miners who were there suggest that the claims of the NUM, especially, overstate the case to their own advantage.  That isn't to say that there wasn't police misconduct (we only have to look at Hillsborough and more recent police behaviour to appreciate that).

There is a lot of film footage on the web which is worth looking at but of course both 'sides' have used spin in presenting their case. In someways though that is the point - the police shouldn't be a 'side' and shouldn't be spinning anything -but we now know from events like Hillsborough that they have done and we need to make sure when it might have happened that it is investigated and brought into the open.