Do you trust the police?

[IC1967]

Look, it's very simple. The police were violent towards the miners. The miners were violent towards the police. I doubt very much that the police would have been violent towards the miners if they hadn't repeatedly tried to break the police lines and hurled missiles on numerous occasions. It could be argued that the miners started it and the police reacted in such a way as to stop any more of their colleagues getting hurt or even killed.

Here's what a police man had to say of events on that day;

'former police officer John Vipond said the hot day led to cans of drink being given to officers.

"Just as you heard the click of the cans, the miners kicked off," he said.

"They started to throw things at us and we had to put these cans down and stand shoulder to shoulder.

"It became rather nasty after that, with surges back and forward."

He said there were "bricks flying and people going down".

"One or two bricks were thrown back from the police into their end."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24941194

I tend to believe what this officer says. The clue is in his last sentence. He admits that the police threw bricks back at the miners. If he was lying do you think he would have admitted this? Come on Billy use your logic for once 

In the real world where I live I can see fault on both sides. You appear to only see fault on the side of the police. On balance it is probably a form of rough justice that no one got convicted for what happened that day. Don't forget that the miners that were prosecuted received very generous compensation payments. The injured police men  did not.

Luckily for all of us, there is no such thing as Billy world (apart from in your own head).

[BillyStubbsTears]

YOU tend to believe what the police said. Grand.

Trouble is, it was demonstrated in the trial of the men arrested at Orgreave and prosecuted for riot and affray that the police had lied on an epic scale. As a result, the police's version of events has to be viewed with skepticism.

35 miners brought civil actions against the police for malicious prosecution and South Yorks police paid out £425,000 in damages as a result.

You want my take, on the balance of the evidence that I've seen and heard? I don't doubt that there were SOME people at the picket who threw bricks and stones. What was never established was who did that, what the scale of it was and whether the men who were prosecuted were involved in that.

The police tried to paint a very particular picture. They did that, apparently, in order to promote a story that there was widescale and very high level violence by the miners, to which the police responded. In setting that story, they were able to push prosecutions for extremely serious offences which might have resulted in men going to prison for ten years or more, even though there was no evidence against them. To set that scene, they invented evidence and produced police statements that were shot through with lies. 34 police statements had identical phrases in them. 22 of them had one entire paragraphs that was identical, including the claim that the miners had charged the police lines and that there had been "a continual barrage of missiles" from the miners. This was done with a purpose: to make sure that the story that there was a riot would stick. But if there WAS a riot, why not rely on genuine police statements? Why concoct statements that were lies?

One police officer has stated in a BBC documentary that he had not seen this happen, but that a plainclothed office had dictated to him what to write. Others had included these comments in their statements when they were not even present at the picket line at the time that the events were alleged to have happened.

Again, if there HAD been a charge and a continual barrage of missiles, why not rely on the officers to write their own version of events? That is how the police are supposed to operate when presenting evidence. Police are supposed to go to court and state under oath what they had actually seen. Not what a senior officer told them that they had seen.

When the lies were exposed in court, the police withdrew their "evidence" and the cases collapsed. It was this that led to the police paying out the miners for malicious prosecution.

We rely on the police to be fair and honest in bringing evidence to court and in relating events as actually happened. That system broke down at Orgreave. It could have resulted in grave miscarriages of justice for men against whom there was not a scrap of real evidence. That is what happens in banana republics, where police and the authorities decide what outcome they want and fit up whoever they want to take the rap.

The questions that have STILL not been addressed after 30 years are:

Who decided to invent and present the demonstrably false evidence?
Why have they not been prosecuted for perverting the course of justice?

The IPCC has been looking into this since October 2012. Eventually, they will make a decision. Then we might find out what actually happened.

Just like we are starting to find out what happened at Hillsborough. And in the Lawrence case. And in Plebgate.

[BigColSutherland]

It's no wonder some people have such firm views that the miners were in the wrong, when national media such as the BBC was knowingly churning out misleading coverage:

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/miners-strike-30-years-foi-documents-reveal-bbc-misgivings-about-its-coverage

[IC1967]

I don't doubt that there were SOME people at the picket who threw bricks and stones.

Phew!!! At last we are getting somewhere. You are starting to see that there are two sides to the argument. There is hope for you.

I can understand the police fabricating evidence. When a mob are throwing bricks at you, you will not be best pleased. Especially if some of your mates are getting hurt. In this situation it is virtually impossible to identify the culprits. The police did the next best thing and rounded up 'colluders' to make an example of them. By doing this they thought the miners would think twice before lobbing bricks at them ever again.

I'm not saying it was right what they did, but I can understand why they did it.

[RedJ]

I don't doubt that there were SOME people at the picket who threw bricks and stones.

Phew!!! At last we are getting somewhere. You are starting to see that there are two sides to the argument. There is hope for you.

He never said that no miners were attacking the police?...

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick.

1) So we now see that your opinion of what I think is as far from the mark as ever.

2) What the police did was not something that "wasn't right". It was a criminal conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. It is behaviour that undermines the democratic system. If you or I did that, on such a scale and with such serious potential consequences, we'd be looking at a ten year stretch. Jonathan Aitken and Jeffrey Archer received 18 month and 4 year sentences for far less serious offences. It is utterly baffling that no police officers have ever faced prosecution for this.

[IC1967]

It is behaviour that undermines the democratic system.

I think at the time, that is a charge that could quite easily have been leveled at the NUM. Just remind me. Who was it that brought down Ted Heath's government? Who was it that was trying to bring down Margaret Thatcher's government? Who was constantly holding the country to ransom? Was it the police or was it the NUM?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

The ballot box brought down Ted Heath.

[IDM]

I read this with interest as I was 16 during the miners strike, and got my information realistically from what was broadcast on look north every evening.

I have no doubt that there will have been some miners provoking the police, and some rogue trouble causers too.  Similarly from what I saw, the police appeared to act OTT.

Now, in the context of this thread, BST voiced that he didn't trust the police as a result of their actions in the legal process, leading to cases collapsing.

He did not say that the miners, or the police, were at fault for the events at the pits, more that the police made (proven) false statements.  Two posters then launched into an attack on BST, accusing him of being a leftie, and then qutoting wikipedia as a source of counter arguments.

I for one don't care a toss for BST's politics (nor anyone elses), and if he says something I disagree with, I will happily say I disagree, but I will also say why I disagree.

It irks me when folks on the forum have a go at others without justifying themselves.

As to the OP question, yes I would trust the Police on a personal level, especially if I needed their help, in the hope that that trust is well founded.  At the same time I do accept that the Police as an institution has had its fair share of corruption and wrong doers over the years.

[twomikenewells]

Well said IDM.....at last you make sense of the whole thread.

I often read BST's posts. I find them interesting and invariably factual, exactly as on this occasion. How on earth we judge his politics from a statement of FACT is beyond me.... and there is no denying that his posts about the corrupt evidence is correct.

I can also say that I know lots of Police officers, from ordinary beat bobbies, to high ranking officers. Like all professions, some good, some bad.

As for me, in relation to the Police ( and my politics is far from left wing), I wouldn't trust them.

[Iberian Red]

You are so two faced it is untrue.

That is the best put down I believe I have ever heard!
 Now do yourself a favour and return it to the playground and the poor 13 year old girl before she misses it.

[IC1967]

The ballot box brought down Ted Heath.

There you go again with your selective memory. Here's what that reputable source Wikipedia reckons:

Arthur Scargill (born 11 January 1938)[1] is a British politician and trade unionist who was president of the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) from 1982 to 2002. Joining the NUM at the age of 19 in 1957, he became one of its leading cadres in the late 1960s. In 1973, he was instrumental in organising the miners' strike that toppled Edward Heath's Conservative Government in March 1974.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Scargill

[IDM]

Those events may have driven the government of the time to call an election, but it was the voters who made the ultimate decisions.

[Filo]

The ballot box brought down Ted Heath.

There you go again with your selective memory. Here's what that reputable source Wikipedia reckons:

Arthur Scargill (born 11 January 1938)[1] is a British politician and trade unionist who was president of the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) from 1982 to 2002. Joining the NUM at the age of 19 in 1957, he became one of its leading cadres in the late 1960s. In 1973, he was instrumental in organising the miners' strike that toppled Edward Heath's Conservative Government in March 1974.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Scargill

Edward Heath resigned as prime minister, even though the Conservatives had won the most seats at the election in the first election that year, Harold Wilson led a minority government after his resignation before he called another election later that year and established a majority government. Heath resigned because the Liberals would not support the conservatives in any confidence votes unless the Conservatives agreed to electoral reform

[IC1967]

We all know it was losing against the miners that really did for him.

[Filo]

We all know it was losing against the miners that really did for him.

I should imagine every defeated leader in a general election has some excuse as to why they lost! Ultimately they lost because the electorate decided they wanted change, not some union boss

[BillyStubbsTears]

I truly do despair Mick. You are once again forming your conclusions and searching for any scrap of evidence to support them.

Heath hadn't "lost" against the miners in 1974. The industrial action was still ongoing. He had quite possibly overplayed his hand and he certainly dealt with industrial relations in a stupifying idiotic way that set public opinion against him (jailing dockers for going on strike for example).

But none of this was remotely close the bringing down his Government. Heath had a sufficiently large majority in the House of Commons to have continued in power until June 1975 and he would not have come close to losing a vote of confidence in the House. He CHOSE to call an early General Election and he CHOSE to use the slogan "Who Governs Britain" in the Election campaign. He did this partly because he wanted to gain a mandate for strong action against the unions. But equally, he did it because he knew that the economy was going to hell in a handcart because of the disastrous economic policies of Anthony Barber, his Chancellor, who had made the most catastrophic blunders in the 1972 and 1973 Budgets. So he knew that he had a chance of winning in early 74, but would have no chance in mid-75 as the inevitable recession after the Barber Boom crippled the economy and inflation went berserk.

He CHOSE the Election and the terms under which it was fought. He lost the Election. That's called Democracy. The miners didn't bring him down. The most you can say is that the miners handed him a loaded gun and he blew his own brains out.

[IC1967]

I think I and the vast majority of readers of this forum will stick with Wikipedia's version of events rather than yours if you don't mind.

[IDM]

IC1967

You don't speak for me. 

I don't take Wiki as gospel, similarly if I wanted to verify/disprove BST's claims then I would do the research myself, if I could be bothered. 

[RedJ]

I think I and the vast majority of readers of this forum will stick with Wikipedia's version of events rather than yours if you don't mind.

So you're using an encyclopedia that anyone can easily edit as your factual basis for forming your opinion?

That tells me all I need to know about you, if I needed any further confirmation.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Which Wikipedia is that Mick?

This one?
"In an act of brinkmanship, Heath called the February 1974 general election while the three-day week was underway. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-day_week

This one?
"Heath tried to bolster his government by calling a general election for 28 February 1974, using the election slogan "Who governs Britain?""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Heath#Fall_from_power

Or maybe this one?
"On 10 February the National Union of Mineworkers, as expected, went on strike; however, it was more of a low-key affair than the high-profile clashes of 1972, with no violence and only six men on each picket line. Jim Prior (Tory minister) later (after the 1974 Election) wrote that the miners had been "as quiet and well-behaved as mice""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_February_1974#Campaign

Take your pick Mick.

[IC1967]

I prefer the evidence I have already posted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Scargill

[BillyStubbsTears]

Woooooosssshhhhh

[BigColSutherland]

Here's one not to trust:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26536795

[Dutch Uncle]

To give a different slant on the original question – here is the sum total of my dealings, in chronological order, with Dutch police of a period of 35+ years and you can judge whether I should trust them or not:

1: Driving in clear middle of the day conditions on a near empty motorway, not in a rush I was driving at 80 km/hr in a 100km/hr limit area and noticed a stationary car on the hard shoulder some way ahead just starting to drive – so I moved into the outer lane to let him merge in; he reached 80 and was driving in parallel with me for a while and seemed to be a constant speed so I went to 90 to overtake; he went to 90 so I went to 100; he went to 100 so I throttled back and let him go. He immediately zoomed off at I guess about 160-180 km/hr.  Five minutes later I saw him on the hard shoulder again – an unmarked police car this time having had more success and booking someone for speeding. I am still furious – goading drivers to exceed limits and creating potentially dangerous situations.

2: Just outside the office I worked there used to be the Police Dog training school and a constant stream of police cars coming in and out. One quiet day with no other cars around I was waiting at the traffic light there and when green came for some lucky reason I was slow to set off.  Otherwise I would have been completely taken out by a dog-handler car shooting a red light at ca 100km/hr in a 50 km/hr limit straight at where I would have been.

3: My wife was pick-pocketed very professionally in a fast food restaurant in the centre of The Hague. We only realised by the time we returned home to the suburbs. As well as cash there were ID cards and credit cards in the stolen wallet. We had to get a police statement for the bank and insurance. Our local police station refused to help and sent us back to the centre, it was only the fourth police station that eventually reluctantly took our statement.

4: My wife, the most careful driver on earth, was the very first car at a red traffic light waiting to go. There were major roadworks and electric cables everywhere. She went on green and was flashed. The picture sent clearly showed cables everywhere. Her protest of innocence fell on totally deaf ears and an increased fine.

5: For completeness – breathalysed on multiple occasions, always with zero or negligible alcohol - met with a mixture of sometimes polite and but occasionally clearly frustrated/disappointed officers.     

In summary a police force that is willing to goad drivers and create dangerous road situations, drives through red lights at high speeds in non-emergency situations, are not there to take your statements when you need them, and have no inclination to believe an innocent driver who had driven 30 years without any offence. Thank goodness I was never unwittingly involved in anything serious.       

[IC1967]

Our police force are saints compared to the Dutch. All you police slaggers need to cop yourself on.

[RedJ]

So because our police are less corrupt than others that makes them wonderful? heard it all now.

[donnyproletarian]

Why not ask the people who were there what happened.No one has mentioned the snatch squads who orchestrated the situation for the convenience of the cameras.No one has spoken to local grass roots police who were rightly pissed because years of community relations were flushed down the pan by outside mercenaries masquerading as police.Do yourself a favour and ask someone who was there if you want a unbiased opinion .

[IC1967]

If I want an unbiased opinion I would rather get it off Wikipedia. There are too many lefties on this forum for me to trust anything they say.

Look, it's very simple. The miners started it and the police finished it. There was wrongdoing on both sides. On balance the rough justice that has prevailed with no-one on either side being convicted will do for me.

Let's not waste any more public money dragging the reputation of the police through the mud for something that happened many years ago. It's time to move on and get behind our boys in blue.

[RedJ]

If you're going to use an online encyclopedia f**k me at least use one with some credibility.