No Orgreave Inquiry

[Hairyloon]

It was worse than the miners because they came armed and were paid to keep the peace. They had instructions from on high (very) to make sure that they did a good job. They did so.

Just to clarify on what that appears to be saying: that they did a good job of keeping the peace?

[dls]

No. They did exactly and effectively what they were told to do. In the eyes of the powers that then were they did a good job.

It was morally worse because their actual job is to keep the peace.

[Hairyloon]

That was what I thought you meant.

[dls]

Irony does not work online. Mea Culpa.

[Hairyloon]

It works, but not reliably so.

[shootist]

No. They did exactly and effectively what they were told to do. In the eyes of the powers that then were they did a good job.

It was morally worse because their actual job is to keep the peace.

How, exactly, does one keep the peace in the face of mass pickets determined to break the law and prevent others from lawfully going about their business? Do you think that the massed flying pickets were obediently lining the road, keeping clear of the busses taking workers to their jobs, and shouting things like "Don't go in there you rotters."? About the only way that the police could have 'kept the peace' was if they had packed up and gone home at which the mob could have peacefully taken control of the pits and peacefully beaten up the strike breakers.

[shootist]

While I'm here, a word or two about the police corruption. At that time (and I'm not condoning it for a second. It was a practice I was fortunate enough to be able to avoid). I strongly believe that probably 90% of the miners arrested were arrested justifiably. But, when you are in the middle of a riot, unprepared by reason of unfamiliarity, you arrest an offender, drag him off to wherever they are being kept. He is booked in and you hastily resume because all hell is breaking loose back at the war zone, which is not too distant. Perhaps you get involved with one or two more arrests. Eventually the dust settles and you regroup and start to sort out the prisoners. It was not uncommon that there would be a handful left over that nobody can remember who arrested them or what they did.

The one thing that every officer is quite sure of is that none of them were arrested without reason. They were arrested in what the military might call a 'target rich environment'. Why arrest an innocent man when there are so many within reach that are not innocent at all? So, what happened, wrongly, illegally, and immorally, is that some willing officer would write a standard public order statement and bung it in, anticipating a guilty plea, or that his word would be taken at face value. I speak of this only to illustrate that is was not the organised corrupt framing of innocent people (in the real life sense rather than the strict legal definition) but for the most part, what was called in other investigations, 'noble cause corruption'.

Certain members here might do well to read the disclaimers I have made. It was wrong, OK, but it's a world apart from the Stazi style frame up practices that are being pushed by the union backed complainers.

[Hairyloon]

While I'm here, a word or two about the police corruption. At that time (and I'm not condoning it for a second. It was a practice I was fortunate enough to be able to avoid). I strongly believe that probably 90% of the miners arrested were arrested justifiably...

But after the justified arrest, was it justified to give them a good kicking?

[shootist]

While I'm here, a word or two about the police corruption. At that time (and I'm not condoning it for a second. It was a practice I was fortunate enough to be able to avoid). I strongly believe that probably 90% of the miners arrested were arrested justifiably...

But after the justified arrest, was it justified to give them a good kicking?

Never justified, but when you have just spent time involved is a very violent situation in fear for your life, bad things can happen. Wrong again, but it's part of life. I don't know if Derbyshire was any more or less saintly when I was with them, but in those 22 years I never knew of anyone getting beaten up in the cells in retribution, and I'm fairly sure I would have. I know of one officer who gave someone a drubbing instead of arresting them. He lost his job and his pension and received a prison sentence for it. I saw a few get 'one for luck' at the finish of a particularly violent encounter, it happens. It is ignorant to criticise violence without knowing a bit about it, both giving and receiving. As an example you will not realise how difficult it is to kick a man in the balls until 1) you've tried it out of necessity and it failed, and 2) someone has tried it on you to no good effect. I've done both.

I recall the day that CCTV was installed in the custody suite for the first time. Initially regarded as a hazard, within a month is was regarded as the officers best friend. Two of the most common starters for violence there was the "You're not searching me." and the "I'm not going in a cell." brotherhoods. Both equally futile, it almost inevitably lead to violence and complaints. Once the CCTV was there, the complaints dropped off significantly. It is an article of faith among the regulars that they admitted the office and/or 'grassed up' (How I hate that expression) their mates because they had a good kicking in the cells. Perhaps true on occasions in the Met, GMP, and Liverpool, and a racing certainty in old time Glasgow, but very rare, IMO, elsewhere.

[dls]

Shootist,

I hope that what came across is that I do not accept the implied theory that 'truth and justice' will not involve severe criticism of the miners. The groups calling for such, unfortunately, give a clear impression that only criticism of the police will do.

Scargill led the miners into violent conflicts. They were prepared to be violent toward 'scabs', and police action was necessary and proper to protect the scabs from miners and to preserve the peace.
At the same time, there is every appearance that there came down from the highest authority in the land instructions that police were to feel free as it were to go over the top. I have over the years spoken to several officers involved in policing the strikes. Privately they do not defend their own behaviour and the behaviour of other officers bussed in from a distance. More than a few welcomed the chance to have a bit of fun and pay off their mortgages at the same time.


Both sides saw it as a chance for a bust up.

My point is that this is not an occasion for a public enquiry. I do not believe that it would have been right to continue to support many of the mines, and without them the communities around them were damned. Somebody had to 'pull the plug' and Thatcher had the courage to do it, and Scargill gave her the perfect opportunity. He made it necessary for Thatcher to do what she did. His was in effect an unannounced attempt to start a revolution.

It should have been done much better. I think that Heseltine later learned his lesson, and did much to help Liverpool to regenerate. I do not think that those around him ever learned teh appropriate lessons.