Battle Of Orgreave

law74 said:
Sadly we haven't had a left government since then, but the times are changing, the people are educating themselves and getting more knowledgeable through social media and new longer as reliant on right wing propaganda sheets like the nazi supporting daily mail
Click to expand...

There's only one thing worse than the tories and that's Jeremy Corbyn and his merry band of hypocrites. Thankfully they will never ever gain power.
 
jaigurugoat said:
There's only one thing worse than the tories and that's Jeremy Corbyn and his merry band of hypocrites. Thankfully they will never ever gain power.
Click to expand...
Explain why you think Momentum are "hypocrites"?
It may not be a Corbyn led Labour government, but I have no doubt that in the not to distant future we will have a true left leaning government (though it will be too late for many, sadly)
 
I find the lack of understanding behind the purpose of strike action very depressing. Perhaps the miners should of rota'd one or two to picket at a time with father ted style placards. The legitimate union action at Orgreave was with the intention of closing or reducing the plants output, which would have had the desired effect of economic damage and reduced manufacturing output. This is a legitimate strike action.

The fact that Scargill was a thundercunt of a donkey in charge of thousands and thousands of lions does not and should not negate from the state and police actions of that day or indeed the whole sorry episode. It is illegal for anyone to engage using unreasonable force and this includes our police force many of which removed their numbers, which is also illegal. Just because the union cleverly concentrated its efforts at various points throughout the strike resulting in 1000's of strikers in one place at one time does not automatically render them to be "mob handed" and its more than fair to say if there were 5000 miners there that day, most of them would have been from within a 20 mile radius of Orgreave, and all of them without batons, horses and sheilds, all of which most definitely could not be said of the Police.

Its worth remembering, these men were not fighting for pay rises, or more holidays, they weren't even fighting for better safety measures, all they wanted was to keep their jobs and the ability to feed cloth and house their families. The overwhelming majority of the pits were still profit making at the time, but it was cheaper for the government to import coal and dump an industry on a slag heap and with it everything else in the community. Many area's still have not recovered over 30 years on.
 
bluemoonmatt said:
I find the lack of understanding behind the purpose of strike action very depressing. Perhaps the miners should of rota'd one or two to picket at a time with father ted style placards. The legitimate union action at Orgreave was with the intention of closing or reducing the plants output, which would have had the desired effect of economic damage and reduced manufacturing output. This is a legitimate strike action.
Click to expand...
What a complete pile of shite that is. The miners certainly had a legitimate right to strike against their own employer, the NCB. Let's put aside the fact that Scargill tried to circumvent his own union's rulebook to attempt to get a national strike without a national ballot.

Orgreave however was owned by British Steel and therefore the miners had no business being there as it wasn't their employer. They'd been thwarted in their original purpose because there was sufficient coal at the coking plants and power stations to see out the strike, plus he'd got his timing wrong with the strike starting in the spring instead of autumn.

Their intention was to close the Orgreave plant, as had happened at Saltley in the previous strike. This would stop supplies of coal from reaching BSC's nearby plants and risked causing permanent damage to those plants and the jobs of the people who worked in them. That's why Scargill's opposite number in the Steel industry, Bill Sirs, refused to join the strike and why there was an agreement between the NUM & the ISTC to allow a minimum level of supplies to be delivered.

It is quite legitimate to withdraw your labour in order to hurt your own employer. But it's not legitimate to use force and intimidation to hurt other businesses and the jobs of the people who work in those.
 
law74 said:
Explain why you think Momentum are "hypocrites"?
It may not be a Corbyn led Labour government, but I have no doubt that in the not to distant future we will have a true left leaning government (though it will be too late for many, sadly)
Click to expand...

They were talking about a kinder style of politics then seeking not just to silence but to eliminate anyone who dares disagree with them. Corbyn's inner circle have been seeking to do this from the very beginning of his leadership. Even poor Jo Cox was on the list of "hostile" MPs. The atmosphere that they created was what caused the attempted post-Brexit coup.

They may have 500,000 new members but they have lost a generation of voters and, judging by its performance in the elections that have taken place, it appears most people can see through Corbyn.

I don't see there being a general election any time soon, certainly not before Brexit is sorted out. Given it's process for electing its leader and the views of its Jonny-come-lately members, Labour will then probably elect someone equally incompetent to replace Corbyn. It will also be much harder for it to win the election than previously due to constituency boundary changes. So I think it will take much longer for there to be a left-wing government than you assume.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
What a complete pile of shite that is. The miners certainly had a legitimate right to strike against their own employer, the NCB. Let's put aside the fact that Scargill tried to circumvent his own union's rulebook to attempt to get a national strike without a national ballot.

Orgreave however was owned by British Steel and therefore the miners had no business being there as it wasn't their employer. They'd been thwarted in their original purpose because there was sufficient coal at the coking plants and power stations to see out the strike, plus he'd got his timing wrong with the strike starting in the spring instead of autumn.

Their intention was to close the Orgreave plant, as had happened at Saltley in the previous strike. This would stop supplies of coal from reaching BSC's nearby plants and risked causing permanent damage to those plants and the jobs of the people who worked in them. That's why Scargill's opposite number in the Steel industry, Bill Sirs, refused to join the strike and why there was an agreement between the NUM & the ISTC to allow a minimum level of supplies to be delivered.

It is quite legitimate to withdraw your labour in order to hurt your own employer. But it's not legitimate to use force and intimidation to hurt other businesses and the jobs of the people who work in those.
Click to expand...
Guessing our views will differ, I've said my piece you've said yours, I won't however lower myself to dismiss your view quite so crassly. My final point will be that Orgreave was indeed a steel owned operation, using Coal product and as the source of that product was central to the dispute the plant became a legitimate target. I cannot understand how anyone can argue that much of the police conduct on the day was anything other than illegal. I've not much else I can add to my original post so I'll leave it there.

Edit, btw the fact that Scargill was and still is a clueless clown who made balls up after balls up is not in dispute, at least not by me.
 
bluemoonmatt said:
My final point will be that Orgreave was indeed a steel owned operation, using Coal product and as the source of that product was central to the dispute the plant became a legitimate target. I cannot understand how anyone can argue that much of the police conduct on the day was anything other than illegal.
Click to expand...

What a load of wibble. How the hell can the consumer of a product be a legitimate target of obstruction, violence and intimidation?

I do not doubt for a minute there were illegal acts by members, or even groups of members, of the police force. Any of these acts pale when compared to what the NUM did. They wanted to overthrow a lawfully elected government by imposing an illegal strike and by using vandalism, violence and intimidation, in order to prevent the law abiding from going about their business.

With the choice of a little bit of police thuggery or the alternative, I'll take the police thuggery. They never killed anyone, after all...but the other side did!
 
bluemoonmatt said:
Guessing our views will differ, I've said my piece you've said yours, I won't however lower myself to dismiss your view quite so crassly. My final point will be that Orgreave was indeed a steel owned operation, using Coal product and as the source of that product was central to the dispute the plant became a legitimate target. I cannot understand how anyone can argue that much of the police conduct on the day was anything other than illegal. I've not much else I can add to my original post so I'll leave it there.

Edit, btw the fact that Scargill was and still is a clueless clown who made balls up after balls up is not in dispute, at least not by me.
Click to expand...
The only thing we disagree on is whether the NUM had a legitimate right to blockade Orgreave. We agree pretty much totally on the police action and on Scargill. I'm a former senior workplace union official by the way so fully support the right to strike. I don't agree with using bully-boy tactics against someone not involved in order to try to secure your objectives.
 
Why are the Hillsborough families saying they won't get the whole truth about Hillsborough until we get the whole truth about Orgreave?

Not having a go at them, I'm just struggling to put two and two together
 
Genuine question to those saying it's a Tory cover up...

Why now? Why haven't previous Labour governments authorised an enquiry into this?
 
The Northern Baptist said:
Why are the Hillsborough families saying they won't get the whole truth about Hillsborough until we get the whole truth about Orgreave?

Not having a go at them, I'm just struggling to put two and two together
Click to expand...
It's a bit of a specious argument on the surface but there's some speculation that SYP were given a free ride by Thatcher over Hillsborough because they did her bidding at Orgreave.

There's solid evidence that Thatcher & Ingham knew that SYP were pulling the wool over their eyes once the actual course of events became clear. Yet Ingham still toes the line to this day when he could say "We believed them initially but it soon became clear that they'd twisted things to escape any blame".

The thing is that Orgreave might have had some bearing on events after 15th April 1989 but there can't seriously be any linkage between Orgreave and the events leading up to the actual game.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
It's a bit of a specious argument on the surface but there's some speculation that SYP were given a free ride by Thatcher over Hillsborough because they did her bidding at Orgreave.

There's solid evidence that Thatcher & Ingham knew that SYP were pulling the wool over their eyes once the actual course of events became clear. Yet Ingham still toes the line to this day when he could say "We believed them initially but it soon became clear that they'd twisted things to escape any blame".

The thing is that Orgreave might have had some bearing on events after 15th April 1989 but there can't seriously be any linkage between Orgreave and the events leading up to the actual game.
Click to expand...

I can definitely see the logic behind that argument. As you say, maybe the two issues became entwined after the event and played a part in the cover up.
 
Cheesy said:
Genuine question to those saying it's a Tory cover up...

Why now? Why haven't previous Labour governments authorised an enquiry into this?
Click to expand...
I'm not about to say this is the only reason but I think as the Hillsborough Independent Inquiry started to uncover more and more Police and establishment lies that ultimately led to the quashing of the original inquest verdicts. The verdicts delivered in the new inquest could only serve to increase the view from many in the region that SYP were a cancerous and corrupt force who lied about H/boro, what else did they and the establishment cover up.

Indeed it is quite a fair question why when after many years in the wilderness a Labour government could not seek to exact "revenge" for the events inflicted on many of their core support, but in doing so it may have been viewed as too hot a potato to instigate an investigation which certainly the tories and their core support would have viewed as purely on the grounds of political motivation.
 
bluemoonmatt said:
I'm not about to say this is the only reason but I think as the Hillsborough Independent Inquiry started to uncover more and more Police and establishment lies that ultimately led to the quashing of the original inquest verdicts. The verdicts delivered in the new inquest could only serve to increase the view from many in the region that SYP were a cancerous and corrupt force who lied about H/boro, what else did they and the establishment cover up.

Indeed it is quite a fair question why when after many years in the wilderness a Labour government could not seek to exact "revenge" for the events inflicted on many of their core support, but in doing so it may have been viewed as too hot a potato to instigate an investigation which certainly the tories and their core support would have viewed as purely on the grounds of political motivation.
Click to expand...

Fair do's.

Cheers for your answer. Suppose I can see the Hillsborough link, at least in the way that Baptist has mentioned above.
 
Gelsons Dad said:
How long were the lefties in power? In all that time this wasn't important but now it is?
Shall we create a remembrance garden with a fountain too?
Click to expand...
Exactly. The police did a fine job keeping order with 5,000 hooligans brought in by bus to illegally prevent the running of the plant.
 
law74 said:
Sadly we haven't had a left government since then, but the times are changing, the people are educating themselves and getting more knowledgeable through social media
Click to expand...
Exactly. Just look at the recent referendum when the left destroyed the right.

That and the recent general election.

Oh and every single opinion poll.
 
Cheesy said:
Genuine question to those saying it's a Tory cover up...

Why now? Why haven't previous Labour governments authorised an enquiry into this?
Click to expand...

There has only been one labour government since Orgreave, and they were hadly going to investigate it.
There was a masterplan in the 70s by the tory partyand right wing think tanks like the Institute of Economic Affairs, the Center for Policy Studies, the Adam Smith Institute to fundamentally change this country by any means necessary and unfortunately they succeeded and in the process, so much so that labour abandoned it's core purpose and though it did some good in power, was tied to the changed politics of thatcher and the new centre ground, so bringing up Orgreave was never in their interest.
we are now reaping this change in the estblishment with massive inequality and a nation divided.

On the Hilsborough bit, Orgreave along with other events were all precursor to it and helped mould the corrupt, lying, law unto themselves SYP into the force they were in 89
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top