Orgreave

[Sprotyrover]

I agree with Bentley and Gloster ,also Michael Mansfield sniffing for a big pay out at our expense.
Plus the laws of evidence were different in 1984, they used The Judges Rules not Police and Criminal evidence Act.
I also read that Thatcher had no intention of the going the way of Jim Callaghan.
Who in their right mind would want Arfur Scabbigills calling the tune?

[wilts rover]

Like Glosterred said above, you'd have thought that all the years Labour have been in power since would have led them to force the issue of an enquiry to gain some smartie points over the Tories.

Why didn't Tony Blair, the man who invited Margaret Thatcher into Dowing Street when he was elected PM, who called her a great political leader and whom Thatcher in return called the greatest legacy I created in British politics, carry out an enquiry into the unscruplulousness of her government?

Because you are confusing New Labour with a proper Labour government.

[glosterred]

Like Glosterred said above, you'd have thought that all the years Labour have been in power since would have led them to force the issue of an enquiry to gain some smartie points over the Tories.

Why didn't Tony Blair, the man who invited Margaret Thatcher into Dowing Street when he was elected PM, who called her a great political leader and whom Thatcher in return called the greatest legacy I created in British politics, carry out an enquiry into the unscruplulousness of her government?

Because you are confusing New Labour with a proper Labour government.

Still the Labour Party and they still have that question to answer.

[wing commander]

My only observation is given it was 32 years ago does it really matter that much?  THIS IS difficult one as for those involved it clearly is important, how long do you leave things, indeed is it relevant in 2016?

I'm open either way but it's a point I have heard made...

That point is invalid, should we now drop historical sexual abuse?, should we stop persuing nazi war criminals?


Just because it was a long time ago does n't mean we should dismiss it, just like Norman Tebbit wants us do do. I wonder why? Is it because he was a cabinet minister at that time?

Seriously Glynn that isn't even close to been on the same page as this a ridiculous comparison..

[Glyn_Wigley]

?

[The Red Baron]

Says it all to me about the current state of the Labour Party. They are fixated about an event that happened 32 years ago. What about the future, guys?

No wonder Labour is increasingly seen as irrelevant.

[wilts rover]

Says it all to me about the current state of the Labour Party. They are fixated about an event that happened 32 years ago. What about the future, guys?

No wonder Labour is increasingly seen as irrelevant.

On the Labour Party's official Twitter page (not somewhere I go very often I must admit), the only post today is about the Living Wage.

Yesterday there were two further tweets about the Living Wage, one about Brexit and one about Orgreave.

What part of 'fixated' am I missing here?

[Glyn_Wigley]

Says it all to me about the current state of the Labour Party. They are fixated about an event that happened 32 years ago. What about the future, guys?

No wonder Labour is increasingly seen as irrelevant.

Damn them poppy sellers, too. Talk about fixating on an event from years ago!

[wing commander]

Says it all to me about the current state of the Labour Party. They are fixated about an event that happened 32 years ago. What about the future, guys?

No wonder Labour is increasingly seen as irrelevant.

Damn them poppy sellers, too. Talk about fixating on an event from years ago!

    Glynn some things cant be forgotten...respecting people who gave there lives for our country,the holocaust and child abuse are in that category....For you to try and put Orgreave in the same bracket is just too stupid a comment to argue with...

[Glyn_Wigley]

But according to TRB, everything has a shelf life. Argue with him, not me. Or perhaps you can tell me after how long injustice and possible political manipulation of the supposedly politically-neutral state security force should be forgotten and ignored - especially after new evidence emerges?

[wing commander]

 I'm not arguing with him I understood what he was trying to say and the context it was meant..Or you for that matter although I think your comments are beyond ridiculous, At the end of the day,you cant argue with stupid,they drag you down to there level then beat you on experience...!!!....But your entitled to your opinion...

[The Red Baron]

I wasn't saying that Orgreave should be forgotten about. I was actually thinking about how Labour's reaction to Rudd's decision would be interpreted by the vast majority of people in this country for whom it is ancient history.

To say they don't agree with the decision not to hold an inquiry is one thing. To commit a future Labour government to holding one is another. Even though the best part of a decade might have passed by the time that such an event comes to pass.

[The Red Baron]

Also those who believe that Rudd has dismissed the calls for a Public Inquiry on political grounds surely then have to accept that some of those calling for the Inquiry are acting on political grounds?

[Glyn_Wigley]

Why would I deny it when the whole thing is stenched in politics, from the moment the police are supposed to have received instructions from above onwards?

[albie]

What is at issue here is the integrity of the judicial system, and the freedom of the system to operate without political interference, or being undermined by interested parties.

The suggestion, borne out by evidence from serving police officers at the time, is that SYP were involved in an organised conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. This includes actions at the time of the Orgreave picket, and subsequent deceptions in order to preserve the version of events which suited the police.

The fact that is was a long time ago is totally irrelevant. If new evidence has come to light, which would cause a reasonable person to review the situation, then it is essential that it be investigated by an independent body.

If you think the "bygones" argument holds water, how long does it have to be before judicial interest should lapse?

Amber "gambler" Rudd has made a serious error of judgement, and if she thinks this will put it to bed she is sadly deluded. It will build into a pot boiler for the Tories until they face up to it.

Much better to deal with it now relatively early in the life of the government than to let it fester on, turning septic.

[Sprotyrover]

What is at issue here is the integrity of the judicial system, and the freedom of the system to operate without political interference, or being undermined by interested parties.

The suggestion, borne out by evidence from serving police officers at the time, is that SYP were involved in an organised conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. This includes actions at the time of the Orgreave picket, and subsequent deceptions in order to preserve the version of events which suited the police.

The fact that is was a long time ago is totally irrelevant. If new evidence has come to light, which would cause a reasonable person to review the situation, then it is essential that it be investigated by an independent body.

If you think the "bygones" argument holds water, how long does it have to be before judicial interest should lapse?

Amber "gambler" Rudd has made a serious error of judgement, and if she thinks this will put it to bed she is sadly deluded. It will build into a pot boiler for the Tories until they face up to it.

Much better to deal with it now relatively early in the life of the government than to let it fester on, turning septic.

Allbe, please point me to the evidence of Police officers serving at the time,all I so far seen is one guy who misheard what was said to him about the use of 'Sufficient force as is Neccesary'  and the some guy stating that the way they were told to prepare their evidence was not in keeping with his own view of then practise. I think SYP will have been given legal advice about this if not correct advice,I am sure that dealing with instances of concerted mass disorder will always be a problem as they are very rare events.
Orgreave was a battle between two 'medieval armies'  in one small (for the numbers involved ) location,most riots happen in urban areas and involved isolated skirmishes,i.e. The Poll tax riots, Bradford,Broadwater farm.
I have no doubt that the SYP were told by the then Govt to do all it could to prevent the Miners closing down the plant.
That's what Governments are supposed to do, protect the population from idiots whose agenda is to bring the country down.

[wilts rover]

Sproty are you seriously asking for evidence of SYP corruption and cover ups of their actions in the 1980's!!! Where have you been for the past year - in a cave?

The least you could have done was look at the SYP and see what their view of Orgreave is - unlike the Home Secretary (and you) they SUPPORT the call for an inquiry and understand why this is so important.

Issued on behalf of Chief Constable Dave Jones, Interim Chief Constable for South Yorkshire Police:

“The Hillsborough Inquests have brought into sharp focus the need to understand and confront the past and give people the opportunity to explore the circumstances of such significant events.

“I would therefore welcome an appropriate independent assessment of Orgreave accepting that the way in which this is delivered is a matter for the Home Secretary.”

http://www.southyorks.police.uk/news-syp/statement-orgreave-interim-chief-constable

[Sprotyrover]

Wilts South Yorkshire Police Chhief Constable is a bloke with the surname Watson, not Jones!
Dave Jones is Chief of North Yorks,not South Yorks. I think the female Chief of West Yorkshire Police would also welcome an enquiry! Maybe they see it as a way of earning some extra revenue,investigating another Force!

[wilts rover]

That's taken from the page on the link I have posted.

I believe Jones was the Acting Chief Constable before Watson - so that dates the page to pre July.

[Sprotyrover]

That's taken from the page on the link I have posted.

I believe Jones was the Acting Chief Constable before Watson - so that dates the page to pre July.

Right,to honest I think any one of them would welcome a Public enquiry, it would last years, it doesn't concern them I doubt any of them were even in the Police back then,the world has moved on since 1984,the Law has completely changed so there would be no lessons learned.I think a few people have seen pound signs including Mr Jones!

[Sprotyrover]

Wilts, just checked, Jones joined Police in 1986 Stephen Watson in 1988.thats how relevant it is to them!

[BobG]

Are you suggesting, Sproty, that Mr Jones is corrupt?  That's  a serious thing to allege. What evidence have you?

Cheers

BobG

[Sprotyrover]

Police Forces make a lot of money by seconding officers to investigations,having said that there will have been a large number of NYP officers at Orgreave. And at the time he penned his article he was 'overseeing ' SYP so he isn't going to get any  job in retirement such as heading an investigation

[The Red Baron]

Personally I'm 50/50 on this one. If the Government had announced a public inquiry I'd have thought it a reasonable decision. Having said that I also thought Amber Rudd's justification for not holding one was reasonable.

I doubt much useful would be learned from such an inquiry. Most of the protagonists have made their minds up, and unless it concluded that there was some  "smoking gun" that proved collusion by the Thatcher Government they would dismiss it as a cover up.

Comparisons with "Hillsborough" are simply wrong. The key inquiry was actually an Inquest into the deaths of 96 people. It was rightly concluded by the Hillsborough Panel (and supported by the Conservative Government) that the original Inquest was not fit for purpose. A fresh Inquest was held and produced a verdict that satisfied many people. Including the families of the victims.

Wearing my cynical head, it would have been easy for Amber Rudd to earn a positive reaction. She could have ordered an Inquiry but appointed an uninquisitve, pro-Establishment judge to lead it (what's Lord Hutton up to these days?). The police would have got some criticism, as would the NUM leadership and the pickets. But crucially some other Home Secretary would have had to deal with the outcome. Still, it would have allowed Michael Mansfield et al to live in the style to which they are accustomed.

If you think I'm some sort of apologist for Amber Rudd, I do have a bone to pick with her. Her refusal to fund legal representation to the families of the victims of the Birmingham Pub Bombings really IS a scandal. People actually died there, and someone probably knows things that will not be revealed without proper cross examination.

[albie]

If this article is true, then Amber Rudd needs to consider her position;
Amber Rudd did not review police files before Orgreave inquiry refusal | Politics | The Guardian

It seems to me that both Rudd (and May before her), have failed to properly consider the weight of available evidence, and as such have not satisfied the first requirement of holding public office.

There is little point in having responsibilities within a cabinet structure if the individuals concerned are unwilling/incapable/too lazy to follow due process.

Rudd has brought the system into disrepute, and left SYP and those wrongfully accused without closure.
She should go.

[albie]

Latest installment from this popular sitcom;
Orgreave files reveal anxiety that evidence flaws could warrant inquiry | Politics | The Guardian

I wonder what's in that file returned to the Home Office (see last paragraph).
More skeletons in the closet still to emerge.

[wilts rover]

Something not quite as damaging as will be in the 30 'secret' files kept back from the public by the Home Office I should imagine.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/20/home-office-holds-30-secret-miners-strike-files