Wasn't the issue at Orgreave less how the miners and the police behaved (the miners were no angels, after all) and more the evidence which the police gave in the various cases they brought against arrested miners on riot charges?
I think that not one of those charged was ever convicted because the police evidence was deemed to be so unreliable.
Whatever you may think of the antics of the NUM and Scargill and the violent behavior of some miners, the police making up or embroidering evidence is a disgrace. This goes to the heart of our justice system. There was far too much of this going on within too many police forces during the 70's and 80's (the West Midlands police force was notorious for its behavior in many cases, not just the Birmingham 6, for instance).
Support for law and order is fine and desirable. Support for the police when they are themselves lawbreakers is not.
You can absolutely connect your iPhone to your Macbook Pro.
Without Wires! It's like Magic !
And you can listen you your Macbook Pro on your iPhone Airpods.
Without Wires! It's like Magic !
Kinda sorta seems like maybe the future. Like Apple has been inventing for decades...
It's depressing that some people like Brexiteers are still mourning the loss of the floppy disk...
It's depressing that some people like Remainers follow Apple like a cult and convince themselves that no headphone jack and shattertastic screens are just great.
He's right about Apple tho. They're running on fumes. The new iPhone doesn't have a headphone jack, the new MacBooks don't have normal USBs (so you can't connect them to your iPhone!!)
They're innovating for the sake of it, rather than actually "innovating". They're making their products worse just so they can say they've changed. Dim.
I'm really grateful apple has gone with USB-C.
It's the way forward.
Finally, one wire for everything.
Yes, unfortunately you can't connect your new iPhone to your new Macbook without buying an adaptor. The same goes for the headphones that come with the iPhone. Ridiculous, and I'm a user of both.
Yes, this is what amazed me. Did the people who designed the new Apple MacBook not talk to the people who designed the new Apple iPhone???
That's a seriously dysfunctional company.
I'm gonna try the new Google Pixel, it's apparently just like an iPhone, but it has a headphone jack.
Same as me - currently have both a Macbook and an iPhone and am seriously considering switching when I want to upgrade.
Putting aside missing USB connections, the post Brexit pricing for the MacBooks is so insane they can't be justified.
I think the price has gone up here in the US too, but maybe not by as much.
In the UK they simultaneously put the price of the old models UP while releasing the new models at a still higher price point. Completely taking the piss.
He's right about Apple tho. They're running on fumes. The new iPhone doesn't have a headphone jack, the new MacBooks don't have normal USBs (so you can't connect them to your iPhone!!)
They're innovating for the sake of it, rather than actually "innovating". They're making their products worse just so they can say they've changed. Dim.
I'm really grateful apple has gone with USB-C.
It's the way forward.
Finally, one wire for everything.
Yes, unfortunately you can't connect your new iPhone to your new Macbook without buying an adaptor. The same goes for the headphones that come with the iPhone. Ridiculous, and I'm a user of both.
Yes, this is what amazed me. Did the people who designed the new Apple MacBook not talk to the people who designed the new Apple iPhone???
That's a seriously dysfunctional company.
I'm gonna try the new Google Pixel, it's apparently just like an iPhone, but it has a headphone jack.
Same as me - currently have both a Macbook and an iPhone and am seriously considering switching when I want to upgrade.
Putting aside missing USB connections, the post Brexit pricing for the MacBooks is so insane they can't be justified.
I think the price has gone up here in the US too, but maybe not by as much.
In the UK they simultaneously put the price of the old models UP while releasing the new models at a still higher price point. Completely taking the piss.
He's right about Apple tho. They're running on fumes. The new iPhone doesn't have a headphone jack, the new MacBooks don't have normal USBs (so you can't connect them to your iPhone!!)
They're innovating for the sake of it, rather than actually "innovating". They're making their products worse just so they can say they've changed. Dim.
I'm really grateful apple has gone with USB-C.
It's the way forward.
Finally, one wire for everything.
Yes, unfortunately you can't connect your new iPhone to your new Macbook without buying an adaptor. The same goes for the headphones that come with the iPhone. Ridiculous, and I'm a user of both.
Yes, this is what amazed me. Did the people who designed the new Apple MacBook not talk to the people who designed the new Apple iPhone???
That's a seriously dysfunctional company.
I'm gonna try the new Google Pixel, it's apparently just like an iPhone, but it has a headphone jack.
Do not buy the Google Pixel.
Buy the OnePlus 3. Essentially the same phone. Half the price.
You can absolutely connect your iPhone to your Macbook Pro.
Without Wires! It's like Magic !
And you can listen you your Macbook Pro on your iPhone Airpods.
Without Wires! It's like Magic !
Kinda sorta seems like maybe the future. Like Apple has been inventing for decades...
It's depressing that some people like Brexiteers are still mourning the loss of the floppy disk...
It's depressing that some people like Remainers follow Apple like a cult and convince themselves that no headphone jack and shattertastic screens are just great.
The Orgreave decision represents a great victory for the Arbeit Macht Frei wing of the Tory party! Herman Goering would have been so proud of Amber Rudd, and been confident that she would have found good reasons not to launch an enquiry into the opening of concentration camps in 1933.
Wasn't the issue at Orgreave less how the miners and the police behaved (the miners were no angels, after all) and more the evidence which the police gave in the various cases they brought against arrested miners on riot charges?
I think that not one of those charged was ever convicted because the police evidence was deemed to be so unreliable.
Whatever you may think of the antics of the NUM and Scargill and the violent behavior of some miners, the police making up or embroidering evidence is a disgrace. This goes to the heart of our justice system. There was far too much of this going on within too many police forces during the 70's and 80's (the West Midlands police force was notorious for its behavior in many cases, not just the Birmingham 6, for instance).
Support for law and order is fine and desirable. Support for the police when they are themselves lawbreakers is not.
I wouldn't go so far as to say both sides were as bad as each other, and the police were certainly heavily provoked, but I expect some were spoiling for a fight as well and took the opportunity.
The Orgreave decision represents a great victory for the Arbeit Macht Frei wing of the Tory party! Herman Goering would have been so proud of Amber Rudd, and been confident that she would have found good reasons not to launch an enquiry into the opening of concentration camps in 1933.
Wasn't the issue at Orgreave less how the miners and the police behaved (the miners were no angels, after all) and more the evidence which the police gave in the various cases they brought against arrested miners on riot charges?
I think that not one of those charged was ever convicted because the police evidence was deemed to be so unreliable.
Whatever you may think of the antics of the NUM and Scargill and the violent behavior of some miners, the police making up or embroidering evidence is a disgrace. This goes to the heart of our justice system. There was far too much of this going on within too many police forces during the 70's and 80's (the West Midlands police force was notorious for its behavior in many cases, not just the Birmingham 6, for instance).
Support for law and order is fine and desirable. Support for the police when they are themselves lawbreakers is not.
Wasn't the issue at Orgreave less how the miners and the police behaved (the miners were no angels, after all) and more the evidence which the police gave in the various cases they brought against arrested miners on riot charges?
I think that not one of those charged was ever convicted because the police evidence was deemed to be so unreliable.
Whatever you may think of the antics of the NUM and Scargill and the violent behavior of some miners, the police making up or embroidering evidence is a disgrace. This goes to the heart of our justice system. There was far too much of this going on within too many police forces during the 70's and 80's (the West Midlands police force was notorious for its behavior in many cases, not just the Birmingham 6, for instance).
Support for law and order is fine and desirable. Support for the police when they are themselves lawbreakers is not.
Precisely - but the judiciary at the time threw out the cases so nobody was actually convicted of riot. To hold a public enquiry at huge expense, when there is no real outcome to change (no officers left in job to fire, no convictions to overturn), would not really be in the public interest.
While it might be seen as a travesty of justice that any were prosecuted, the judges at the time dealt with that issue.
I am am/was an Apple fanboy but the headphone jack omission is beyond stupid. The 3.5mm jack was one of those rare things of beauty in hifi tech - a bone fide industry standard, that worked, was ubiquitous and backwards and forwards* compatible. Almost every household has a 3.5mm cable, meaning music can be played anywhere by anyone. It was seriously stupid to remove the jack. I love my iPhone 6+ and will not be upgrading.
Every household had a 3.5" floppy
My phone connects Bluetooth to the devices I use for playback and calls.
I am am/was an Apple fanboy but the headphone jack omission is beyond stupid. The 3.5mm jack was one of those rare things of beauty in hifi tech - a bone fide industry standard, that worked, was ubiquitous and backwards and forwards* compatible. Almost every household has a 3.5mm cable, meaning music can be played anywhere by anyone. It was seriously stupid to remove the jack. I love my iPhone 6+ and will not be upgrading.
Every household had a 3.5" floppy
My phone connects Bluetooth to the devices I use for playback and calls.
It's like MAGIC !
The only thing I plug into it is a charger.
Yes but not everyone has a Bluetooth hi-fi, at their homes, so if you are visiting you can't play your music (assuming it is wanted!). Nor is Bluetooth as good quality as cabled music.
He's right about Apple tho. They're running on fumes. The new iPhone doesn't have a headphone jack, the new MacBooks don't have normal USBs (so you can't connect them to your iPhone!!)
They're innovating for the sake of it, rather than actually "innovating". They're making their products worse just so they can say they've changed. Dim.
I'm really grateful apple has gone with USB-C.
It's the way forward.
Finally, one wire for everything.
Yes, unfortunately you can't connect your new iPhone to your new Macbook without buying an adaptor. The same goes for the headphones that come with the iPhone. Ridiculous, and I'm a user of both.
Yes, this is what amazed me. Did the people who designed the new Apple MacBook not talk to the people who designed the new Apple iPhone???
That's a seriously dysfunctional company.
I'm gonna try the new Google Pixel, it's apparently just like an iPhone, but it has a headphone jack.
Do not buy the Google Pixel.
Buy the OnePlus 3. Essentially the same phone. Half the price.
Bought a one plus x - 2 months, already in the bin. Update made the earpiece so quiet as to be inaudible. Gone back to my old Sony. Sad, because in every other way it was a good piece of kit.
Wasn't the issue at Orgreave less how the miners and the police behaved (the miners were no angels, after all) and more the evidence which the police gave in the various cases they brought against arrested miners on riot charges?
I think that not one of those charged was ever convicted because the police evidence was deemed to be so unreliable.
Whatever you may think of the antics of the NUM and Scargill and the violent behavior of some miners, the police making up or embroidering evidence is a disgrace. This goes to the heart of our justice system. There was far too much of this going on within too many police forces during the 70's and 80's (the West Midlands police force was notorious for its behavior in many cases, not just the Birmingham 6, for instance).
Support for law and order is fine and desirable. Support for the police when they are themselves lawbreakers is not.
That is all true. The question for now however is what is there that could be learned from an inquiry other than that some officers - now all retired - were at best over-zealous and at worst bent? As you say, none were convicted so it's not as if there's an injustice to right (particularly given that the whole picket was illegal).
In one sense Apple's ridiculous pricing is an unavoidable part of their business model. They can't risk getting too much market share because then they would risk getting broken up or forced to allow other manufacturers to make devices with their operating systems.
He's right about Apple tho. They're running on fumes. The new iPhone doesn't have a headphone jack, the new MacBooks don't have normal USBs (so you can't connect them to your iPhone!!)
They're innovating for the sake of it, rather than actually "innovating". They're making their products worse just so they can say they've changed. Dim.
I'm really grateful apple has gone with USB-C.
It's the way forward.
Finally, one wire for everything.
Yes, unfortunately you can't connect your new iPhone to your new Macbook without buying an adaptor. The same goes for the headphones that come with the iPhone. Ridiculous, and I'm a user of both.
Yes, this is what amazed me. Did the people who designed the new Apple MacBook not talk to the people who designed the new Apple iPhone???
That's a seriously dysfunctional company.
I'm gonna try the new Google Pixel, it's apparently just like an iPhone, but it has a headphone jack.
Do not buy the Google Pixel.
Buy the OnePlus 3. Essentially the same phone. Half the price.
Does it get proper security updates? As far as I can tell the only Android phones available that are adequately patched are the Google ones.
Mr. E, there seems an endless appetite to rake over the past.
Were the scum who dropped concrete blocks off a bridge, killing a 'scab' going to work, ever caught and prosecuted? [ it was before my time so I've heard the story but not the outcome].
Wasn't the issue at Orgreave less how the miners and the police behaved (the miners were no angels, after all) and more the evidence which the police gave in the various cases they brought against arrested miners on riot charges?
I think that not one of those charged was ever convicted because the police evidence was deemed to be so unreliable.
Whatever you may think of the antics of the NUM and Scargill and the violent behavior of some miners, the police making up or embroidering evidence is a disgrace. This goes to the heart of our justice system. There was far too much of this going on within too many police forces during the 70's and 80's (the West Midlands police force was notorious for its behavior in many cases, not just the Birmingham 6, for instance).
Support for law and order is fine and desirable. Support for the police when they are themselves lawbreakers is not.
Precisely - but the judiciary at the time threw out the cases so nobody was actually convicted of riot. To hold a public enquiry at huge expense, when there is no real outcome to change (no officers left in job to fire, no convictions to overturn), would not really be in the public interest.
While it might be seen as a travesty of justice that any were prosecuted, the judges at the time dealt with that issue.
But there almost certainly will be an Inquiry at some stage even if it does take a further 10 years to launch it. Even a minority non-Tory Govt will see to that . It will remain a festering sore that does great discredit to our police force and system of justice.
Wasn't the issue at Orgreave less how the miners and the police behaved (the miners were no angels, after all) and more the evidence which the police gave in the various cases they brought against arrested miners on riot charges?
I think that not one of those charged was ever convicted because the police evidence was deemed to be so unreliable.
Whatever you may think of the antics of the NUM and Scargill and the violent behavior of some miners, the police making up or embroidering evidence is a disgrace. This goes to the heart of our justice system. There was far too much of this going on within too many police forces during the 70's and 80's (the West Midlands police force was notorious for its behavior in many cases, not just the Birmingham 6, for instance).
Support for law and order is fine and desirable. Support for the police when they are themselves lawbreakers is not.
Agree with that but it's well over 30 years ago, and so I think it's largely irrelevant to police culture today. There have been a great number of police corruption cases since then, and [I believe] they've helped hugely improve the service from the situation you describe.
The rozzers are far from perfect - and they never will be, that's just unrealistic - but raking Orgreave over at vast expense to provide no discernible benefit is self-indulgent codswallop.
Mr. E, there seems an endless appetite to rake over the past.
Were the scum who dropped concrete blocks off a bridge, killing a 'scab' going to work, ever caught and prosecuted? [ it was before my time so I've heard the story but not the outcome].
Wasn't the issue at Orgreave less how the miners and the police behaved (the miners were no angels, after all) and more the evidence which the police gave in the various cases they brought against arrested miners on riot charges?
I think that not one of those charged was ever convicted because the police evidence was deemed to be so unreliable.
Whatever you may think of the antics of the NUM and Scargill and the violent behavior of some miners, the police making up or embroidering evidence is a disgrace. This goes to the heart of our justice system. There was far too much of this going on within too many police forces during the 70's and 80's (the West Midlands police force was notorious for its behavior in many cases, not just the Birmingham 6, for instance).
Support for law and order is fine and desirable. Support for the police when they are themselves lawbreakers is not.
That is all true. The question for now however is what is there that could be learned from an inquiry other than that some officers - now all retired - were at best over-zealous and at worst bent? As you say, none were convicted so it's not as if there's an injustice to right (particularly given that the whole picket was illegal).
But if police officers were over zealous and bent they deserve to be punished - some quite severely!
Wasn't the issue at Orgreave less how the miners and the police behaved (the miners were no angels, after all) and more the evidence which the police gave in the various cases they brought against arrested miners on riot charges?
I think that not one of those charged was ever convicted because the police evidence was deemed to be so unreliable.
Whatever you may think of the antics of the NUM and Scargill and the violent behavior of some miners, the police making up or embroidering evidence is a disgrace. This goes to the heart of our justice system. There was far too much of this going on within too many police forces during the 70's and 80's (the West Midlands police force was notorious for its behavior in many cases, not just the Birmingham 6, for instance).
Support for law and order is fine and desirable. Support for the police when they are themselves lawbreakers is not.
Precisely - but the judiciary at the time threw out the cases so nobody was actually convicted of riot. To hold a public enquiry at huge expense, when there is no real outcome to change (no officers left in job to fire, no convictions to overturn), would not really be in the public interest.
While it might be seen as a travesty of justice that any were prosecuted, the judges at the time dealt with that issue.
Yes. True. The individual cases were thrown out.
But that does not really deal with the issue of how it came about that a culture developed in a police force where such behavior happened. This was not one or two officers. This was many of them, all of whom thought that (a) they could/should do this; and (b) presumably thought they could/would get away with it.
A police force in which a significant number of officers is willing to ignore the law is not a police force worthy of the name. Was Orgreave a one-off? Or did this attitude obtain in other cases? And how can anyone be certain that it has not endured? After all, if there are no adverse consequences for misbehaving why wouldn't it endure? Why wouldn't it be passed on to new recruits as "the way we do things round here"?
It may not make sense to have an inquiry into Orgreave for the reasons which the Home Secretary has set out. But ensuring that the police force - in that region and elsewhere - has the right culture to such important matters as telling the truth to a court is, IMO, a pretty important part of the Home Secretary's job. It's not as if we haven't seen misbehavior by police forces since the mid-1980's.
Wasn't the issue at Orgreave less how the miners and the police behaved (the miners were no angels, after all) and more the evidence which the police gave in the various cases they brought against arrested miners on riot charges?
I think that not one of those charged was ever convicted because the police evidence was deemed to be so unreliable.
Whatever you may think of the antics of the NUM and Scargill and the violent behavior of some miners, the police making up or embroidering evidence is a disgrace. This goes to the heart of our justice system. There was far too much of this going on within too many police forces during the 70's and 80's (the West Midlands police force was notorious for its behavior in many cases, not just the Birmingham 6, for instance).
Support for law and order is fine and desirable. Support for the police when they are themselves lawbreakers is not.
Precisely - but the judiciary at the time threw out the cases so nobody was actually convicted of riot. To hold a public enquiry at huge expense, when there is no real outcome to change (no officers left in job to fire, no convictions to overturn), would not really be in the public interest.
While it might be seen as a travesty of justice that any were prosecuted, the judges at the time dealt with that issue.
But there almost certainly will be an Inquiry at some stage even if it does take a further 10 years to launch it. Even a minority non-Tory Govt will see to that . It will remain a festering sore that does great discredit to our police force and system of justice.
And the further away we get, the less sensible that becomes. We know what happened at Orgreave - two opposing armies lined up for a pre planned battle, and consequently had one.
I am am/was an Apple fanboy but the headphone jack omission is beyond stupid. The 3.5mm jack was one of those rare things of beauty in hifi tech - a bone fide industry standard, that worked, was ubiquitous and backwards and forwards* compatible. Almost every household has a 3.5mm cable, meaning music can be played anywhere by anyone. It was seriously stupid to remove the jack. I love my iPhone 6+ and will not be upgrading.
Every household had a 3.5" floppy
My phone connects Bluetooth to the devices I use for playback and calls.
I am am/was an Apple fanboy but the headphone jack omission is beyond stupid. The 3.5mm jack was one of those rare things of beauty in hifi tech - a bone fide industry standard, that worked, was ubiquitous and backwards and forwards* compatible. Almost every household has a 3.5mm cable, meaning music can be played anywhere by anyone. It was seriously stupid to remove the jack. I love my iPhone 6+ and will not be upgrading.
Every household had a 3.5" floppy
My phone connects Bluetooth to the devices I use for playback and calls.
It's like MAGIC !
The only thing I plug into it is a charger.
Yes but not everyone has a Bluetooth hi-fi, at their homes, so if you are visiting you can't play your music (assuming it is wanted!). Nor is Bluetooth as good quality as cabled music.
Quality of music produced has been thrown overboard in the name of convenience. Everything is now predicated on Bluetooth. If you go to John Lewis stores, they no longer sell anything that actually plays CDs....
It is not exactly a forward move in the history of music.
Well the Tories won't be taking any South Yorkshire seats at the next general election now.
Absolutely the right decision on Orgreave. About time someone politely told the victim culture class where to go.
Apart from being 32 years ago, where many witnesses will be at best some way removed from the events and susceptible to selective memories, or 'memories' reinforced by the popular narrative that's since developed. A skewed inquiry into just Orgreave would also miss the fundamental point that the miners were illegally on strike, were illegally picketing and were aiming to put their union above the law.
Perhaps Dennis Skinner could resign to fight a byelection?
Except that's what they said about the Hillsborough inquiry.
Except 96 people died there. The only death at Orgreave was the miners dream that they could overthrow a government by law breaking.
It was teh death knell of loads of small towns and villages. Workers beaten by police following political orders, it is every bit as important as Hillsborough and as big if not bigger cover up.
Mr. E, there seems an endless appetite to rake over the past.
Were the scum who dropped concrete blocks off a bridge, killing a 'scab' going to work, ever caught and prosecuted? [ it was before my time so I've heard the story but not the outcome].
He's right about Apple tho. They're running on fumes. The new iPhone doesn't have a headphone jack, the new MacBooks don't have normal USBs (so you can't connect them to your iPhone!!)
They're innovating for the sake of it, rather than actually "innovating". They're making their products worse just so they can say they've changed. Dim.
I'm really grateful apple has gone with USB-C.
It's the way forward.
Finally, one wire for everything.
Yes, unfortunately you can't connect your new iPhone to your new Macbook without buying an adaptor. The same goes for the headphones that come with the iPhone. Ridiculous, and I'm a user of both.
Yes, this is what amazed me. Did the people who designed the new Apple MacBook not talk to the people who designed the new Apple iPhone???
That's a seriously dysfunctional company.
I'm gonna try the new Google Pixel, it's apparently just like an iPhone, but it has a headphone jack.
Do not buy the Google Pixel.
Buy the OnePlus 3. Essentially the same phone. Half the price.
Bought a one plus x - 2 months, already in the bin. Update made the earpiece so quiet as to be inaudible. Gone back to my old Sony. Sad, because in every other way it was a good piece of kit.
I have owned over a 100 mobile phones. The OnePlus 3 is a mile better than any other I've ever owned. I swapped a Samsung Galaxy S7 for it, so it wasn't like I was coming from a cheap phone.
Wasn't the issue at Orgreave less how the miners and the police behaved (the miners were no angels, after all) and more the evidence which the police gave in the various cases they brought against arrested miners on riot charges?
I think that not one of those charged was ever convicted because the police evidence was deemed to be so unreliable.
Whatever you may think of the antics of the NUM and Scargill and the violent behavior of some miners, the police making up or embroidering evidence is a disgrace. This goes to the heart of our justice system. There was far too much of this going on within too many police forces during the 70's and 80's (the West Midlands police force was notorious for its behavior in many cases, not just the Birmingham 6, for instance).
Support for law and order is fine and desirable. Support for the police when they are themselves lawbreakers is not.
That is all true. The question for now however is what is there that could be learned from an inquiry other than that some officers - now all retired - were at best over-zealous and at worst bent? As you say, none were convicted so it's not as if there's an injustice to right (particularly given that the whole picket was illegal).
See my later answer. How does a culture develop within the police force which allows/condones/encourages police officers to be bent? How does one stop or mitigate this? Are we now doing enough? What else could we / should we do?
Those are all matters which could be usefully looked at.
Raking over the events of one day is pointless not least because it seems to me that some of those calling for it simply want to use it to (a) turn the miners into innocent victims; and (b) tar the Tories again with the muck from old battles rather than learn useful lessons for now and the future.
But that doesn't mean that there aren't useful lessons to be learned about how to keep public servants honest. A Parliamentary Commission on standards within the police (similar to the Commission on Banking Standards, which produced a very fine report and some useful changes) might be one way to go.
Wasn't the issue at Orgreave less how the miners and the police behaved (the miners were no angels, after all) and more the evidence which the police gave in the various cases they brought against arrested miners on riot charges?
I think that not one of those charged was ever convicted because the police evidence was deemed to be so unreliable.
Whatever you may think of the antics of the NUM and Scargill and the violent behavior of some miners, the police making up or embroidering evidence is a disgrace. This goes to the heart of our justice system. There was far too much of this going on within too many police forces during the 70's and 80's (the West Midlands police force was notorious for its behavior in many cases, not just the Birmingham 6, for instance).
Support for law and order is fine and desirable. Support for the police when they are themselves lawbreakers is not.
Precisely - but the judiciary at the time threw out the cases so nobody was actually convicted of riot. To hold a public enquiry at huge expense, when there is no real outcome to change (no officers left in job to fire, no convictions to overturn), would not really be in the public interest.
While it might be seen as a travesty of justice that any were prosecuted, the judges at the time dealt with that issue.
But there almost certainly will be an Inquiry at some stage even if it does take a further 10 years to launch it. Even a minority non-Tory Govt will see to that . It will remain a festering sore that does great discredit to our police force and system of justice.
And the further away we get, the less sensible that becomes. We know what happened at Orgreave - two opposing armies lined up for a pre planned battle, and consequently had one.
Rudd's decision has added a further dimension to the issue. It now smells of political and establishment cover up and evokes memories of recent paedophilia scandals etc. It will certainly not go away now!
Not good enough for Trump. TX worryingly close for him.
I suspect there will be a decisive swing one way or the other before polling day. If Trump ends up coming home comfortably in Nevada and Arizona he'll probably take Colorado too. On this poll he's further behind in NH than PA yet other polling has him ahead. If he takes both states and Florida his 'path' looks pretty wide.
Wasn't the issue at Orgreave less how the miners and the police behaved (the miners were no angels, after all) and more the evidence which the police gave in the various cases they brought against arrested miners on riot charges?
I think that not one of those charged was ever convicted because the police evidence was deemed to be so unreliable.
Whatever you may think of the antics of the NUM and Scargill and the violent behavior of some miners, the police making up or embroidering evidence is a disgrace. This goes to the heart of our justice system. There was far too much of this going on within too many police forces during the 70's and 80's (the West Midlands police force was notorious for its behavior in many cases, not just the Birmingham 6, for instance).
Support for law and order is fine and desirable. Support for the police when they are themselves lawbreakers is not.
That is all true. The question for now however is what is there that could be learned from an inquiry other than that some officers - now all retired - were at best over-zealous and at worst bent? As you say, none were convicted so it's not as if there's an injustice to right (particularly given that the whole picket was illegal).
But if police officers were over zealous and bent they deserve to be punished - some quite severely!
If it can be proven that a particular (former) officer was involved in criminal misconduct, then yes. But I very much doubt that at this remove it could be.
I am am/was an Apple fanboy but the headphone jack omission is beyond stupid. The 3.5mm jack was one of those rare things of beauty in hifi tech - a bone fide industry standard, that worked, was ubiquitous and backwards and forwards* compatible. Almost every household has a 3.5mm cable, meaning music can be played anywhere by anyone. It was seriously stupid to remove the jack. I love my iPhone 6+ and will not be upgrading.
Every household had a 3.5" floppy
My phone connects Bluetooth to the devices I use for playback and calls.
I am am/was an Apple fanboy but the headphone jack omission is beyond stupid. The 3.5mm jack was one of those rare things of beauty in hifi tech - a bone fide industry standard, that worked, was ubiquitous and backwards and forwards* compatible. Almost every household has a 3.5mm cable, meaning music can be played anywhere by anyone. It was seriously stupid to remove the jack. I love my iPhone 6+ and will not be upgrading.
Every household had a 3.5" floppy
My phone connects Bluetooth to the devices I use for playback and calls.
It's like MAGIC !
The only thing I plug into it is a charger.
Yes but not everyone has a Bluetooth hi-fi, at their homes, so if you are visiting you can't play your music (assuming it is wanted!). Nor is Bluetooth as good quality as cabled music.
Quality of music produced has been thrown overboard in the name of convenience. Everything is now predicated on Bluetooth. If you go to John Lewis stores, they no longer sell anything that actually plays CDs....
It is not exactly a forward move in the history of music.
They are getting there slowly with Bluetooth audio. The best bose & sennheiser Bluetooth models are very good, but you are paying £300+ for the privilege. The cheap Bluetooth headphones are shit, where as you can get sub £100 wired headphones which are very good.
Wasn't the issue at Orgreave less how the miners and the police behaved (the miners were no angels, after all) and more the evidence which the police gave in the various cases they brought against arrested miners on riot charges?
I think that not one of those charged was ever convicted because the police evidence was deemed to be so unreliable.
Whatever you may think of the antics of the NUM and Scargill and the violent behavior of some miners, the police making up or embroidering evidence is a disgrace. This goes to the heart of our justice system. There was far too much of this going on within too many police forces during the 70's and 80's (the West Midlands police force was notorious for its behavior in many cases, not just the Birmingham 6, for instance).
Support for law and order is fine and desirable. Support for the police when they are themselves lawbreakers is not.
Precisely - but the judiciary at the time threw out the cases so nobody was actually convicted of riot. To hold a public enquiry at huge expense, when there is no real outcome to change (no officers left in job to fire, no convictions to overturn), would not really be in the public interest.
While it might be seen as a travesty of justice that any were prosecuted, the judges at the time dealt with that issue.
But there almost certainly will be an Inquiry at some stage even if it does take a further 10 years to launch it. Even a minority non-Tory Govt will see to that . It will remain a festering sore that does great discredit to our police force and system of justice.
And the further away we get, the less sensible that becomes. We know what happened at Orgreave - two opposing armies lined up for a pre planned battle, and consequently had one.
I don't think so , the police laid an ambush , had the mounted police in droves hidden and then goaded eth miners so they could be charged and beaten up. Makes Pinochets boys look like angels, no wonder the Tories protected him.
Wasn't the issue at Orgreave less how the miners and the police behaved (the miners were no angels, after all) and more the evidence which the police gave in the various cases they brought against arrested miners on riot charges?
I think that not one of those charged was ever convicted because the police evidence was deemed to be so unreliable.
Whatever you may think of the antics of the NUM and Scargill and the violent behavior of some miners, the police making up or embroidering evidence is a disgrace. This goes to the heart of our justice system. There was far too much of this going on within too many police forces during the 70's and 80's (the West Midlands police force was notorious for its behavior in many cases, not just the Birmingham 6, for instance).
Support for law and order is fine and desirable. Support for the police when they are themselves lawbreakers is not.
Precisely - but the judiciary at the time threw out the cases so nobody was actually convicted of riot. To hold a public enquiry at huge expense, when there is no real outcome to change (no officers left in job to fire, no convictions to overturn), would not really be in the public interest.
While it might be seen as a travesty of justice that any were prosecuted, the judges at the time dealt with that issue.
Yes. True. The individual cases were thrown out.
But that does not really deal with the issue of how it came about that a culture developed in a police force where such behavior happened. This was not one or two officers. This was many of them, all of whom thought that (a) they could/should do this; and (b) presumably thought they could/would get away with it.
A police force in which a significant number of officers is willing to ignore the law is not a police force worthy of the name. Was Orgreave a one-off? Or did this attitude obtain in other cases? And how can anyone be certain that it has not endured? After all, if there are no adverse consequences for misbehaving why wouldn't it endure? Why wouldn't it be passed on to new recruits as "the way we do things round here"?
It may not make sense to have an inquiry into Orgreave for the reasons which the Home Secretary has set out. But ensuring that the police force - in that region and elsewhere - has the right culture to such important matters as telling the truth to a court is, IMO, a pretty important part of the Home Secretary's job. It's not as if we haven't seen misbehavior by police forces since the mid-1980's.
Of more relevance would be an inquiry into S Yorks Police's current handling of the Rotherham sex abuse scandal (and other related / parallel cases).
The Orgreave decision represents a great victory for the Arbeit Macht Frei wing of the Tory party! Herman Goering would have been so proud of Amber Rudd, and been confident that she would have found good reasons not to launch an enquiry into the opening of concentration camps in 1933.
As for these events being too distant in time, I believe that the police are currently engaged in investigating allegations made against a former Bishop of Chichester relating to events of the early 1950s. The Bishop concerned died in 1958!
"Instead, three-quarters of people — including eight out of ten Leave and Ukip supporters — see Brexit as the opportunity to get the balance right, to have more choice and control over who comes to Britain while still keeping the immigration that is good for our economy and society."
An article for the FT, eh? Did Mr Katwala get paid for this amazing insight, I wonder?
Some of us (*buffs nails*) have been saying much the same for some time -
As for these events being too distant in time, I believe that the police are currently engaged in investigating allegations made against a former Bishop of Chichester relating to events of the early 1950s. The Bishop concerned died in 1958!
Well the Tories won't be taking any South Yorkshire seats at the next general election now.
Absolutely the right decision on Orgreave. About time someone politely told the victim culture class where to go.
Apart from being 32 years ago, where many witnesses will be at best some way removed from the events and susceptible to selective memories, or 'memories' reinforced by the popular narrative that's since developed. A skewed inquiry into just Orgreave would also miss the fundamental point that the miners were illegally on strike, were illegally picketing and were aiming to put their union above the law.
Perhaps Dennis Skinner could resign to fight a byelection?
Except that's what they said about the Hillsborough inquiry.
Except 96 people died there. The only death at Orgreave was the miners dream that they could overthrow a government by law breaking.
It was teh death knell of loads of small towns and villages. Workers beaten by police following political orders, it is every bit as important as Hillsborough and as big if not bigger cover up.
Mining was finished in the Uk.
The tin miners, chandlers and coopers went the same way - it's called progress.
I am am/was an Apple fanboy but the headphone jack omission is beyond stupid. The 3.5mm jack was one of those rare things of beauty in hifi tech - a bone fide industry standard, that worked, was ubiquitous and backwards and forwards* compatible. Almost every household has a 3.5mm cable, meaning music can be played anywhere by anyone. It was seriously stupid to remove the jack. I love my iPhone 6+ and will not be upgrading.
Every household had a 3.5" floppy
My phone connects Bluetooth to the devices I use for playback and calls.
I am am/was an Apple fanboy but the headphone jack omission is beyond stupid. The 3.5mm jack was one of those rare things of beauty in hifi tech - a bone fide industry standard, that worked, was ubiquitous and backwards and forwards* compatible. Almost every household has a 3.5mm cable, meaning music can be played anywhere by anyone. It was seriously stupid to remove the jack. I love my iPhone 6+ and will not be upgrading.
Every household had a 3.5" floppy
My phone connects Bluetooth to the devices I use for playback and calls.
It's like MAGIC !
The only thing I plug into it is a charger.
Yes but not everyone has a Bluetooth hi-fi, at their homes, so if you are visiting you can't play your music (assuming it is wanted!). Nor is Bluetooth as good quality as cabled music.
Quality of music produced has been thrown overboard in the name of convenience. Everything is now predicated on Bluetooth. If you go to John Lewis stores, they no longer sell anything that actually plays CDs....
It is not exactly a forward move in the history of music.
Quite right. I am a lover of tech, but by far the best sound I get at home is vinyl on a Project turntable through Cambridge Audio pre-amp and Cambridge Audio cables. Why I need my music to be wireless when I am sat in my living room I have absolutely no idea.
Children may still be at risk now. I'm far more concerned about the sexual abuse of nearly one and a half thousand children (a third of whom were boys) and the utter failure of the authorities locally to take it seriously and investigate it.
But that does not really deal with the issue of how it came about that a culture developed in a police force where such behavior happened. This was not one or two officers. This was many of them, all of whom thought that (a) they could/should do this; and (b) presumably thought they could/would get away with it.
A police force in which a significant number of officers is willing to ignore the law is not a police force worthy of the name. Was Orgreave a one-off? Or did this attitude obtain in other cases? And how can anyone be certain that it has not endured? After all, if there are no adverse consequences for misbehaving why wouldn't it endure? Why wouldn't it be passed on to new recruits as "the way we do things round here"?
It may not make sense to have an inquiry into Orgreave for the reasons which the Home Secretary has set out. But ensuring that the police force - in that region and elsewhere - has the right culture to such important matters as telling the truth to a court is, IMO, a pretty important part of the Home Secretary's job. It's not as if we haven't seen misbehavior by police forces since the mid-1980's.
Mrs. Free, the point you raise is valid but an enquiry into the events at Orgreave 32 years after the event is not the way to address it. There were those of us in the Home Office twenty years ago who were arguing for a Royal Commission into the police, which we said was long overdue. The politicians knocked the idea back and instead Ken Clarke set up the disastrous Sheehy inquiry, which was aimed more at cutting costs than producing a police service fit for the modern era.
As for these events being too distant in time, I believe that the police are currently engaged in investigating allegations made against a former Bishop of Chichester relating to events of the early 1950s. The Bishop concerned died in 1958!
Why are the police investigating a dead person?
That did occur to me simply because he cannot be charged or prosecuted. However, a man has made allegations of abuse relating to the early 1950s.
Precisely - but the judiciary at the time threw out the cases so nobody was actually convicted of riot. To hold a public enquiry at huge expense, when there is no real outcome to change (no officers left in job to fire, no convictions to overturn), would not really be in the public interest.
While it might be seen as a travesty of justice that any were prosecuted, the judges at the time dealt with that issue.
Yes. True. The individual cases were thrown out.
But that does not really deal with the issue of how it came about that a culture developed in a police force where such behavior happened. This was not one or two officers. This was many of them, all of whom thought that (a) they could/should do this; and (b) presumably thought they could/would get away with it.
A police force in which a significant number of officers is willing to ignore the law is not a police force worthy of the name. Was Orgreave a one-off? Or did this attitude obtain in other cases? And how can anyone be certain that it has not endured? After all, if there are no adverse consequences for misbehaving why wouldn't it endure? Why wouldn't it be passed on to new recruits as "the way we do things round here"?
It may not make sense to have an inquiry into Orgreave for the reasons which the Home Secretary has set out. But ensuring that the police force - in that region and elsewhere - has the right culture to such important matters as telling the truth to a court is, IMO, a pretty important part of the Home Secretary's job. It's not as if we haven't seen misbehavior by police forces since the mid-1980's.
Of more relevance would be an inquiry into S Yorks Police's current handling of the Rotherham sex abuse scandal (and other related / parallel cases).
Indeed. It's not either/or, though. And perhaps an inquiry into police culture might help explain why that police force is at the heart of another prolonged episode where evidence has, allegedly, been lost/falsified/ignored and investigative decisions taken, again allegedly, for the wrong/political reasons.
I suspect there will be a decisive swing one way or the other before polling day. If Trump ends up coming home comfortably in Nevada and Arizona he'll probably take Colorado too. On this poll he's further behind in NH than PA yet other polling has him ahead. If he takes both states and Florida his 'path' looks pretty wide.
As for these events being too distant in time, I believe that the police are currently engaged in investigating allegations made against a former Bishop of Chichester relating to events of the early 1950s. The Bishop concerned died in 1958!
Why are the police investigating a dead person?
That did occur to me simply because he cannot be charged or prosecuted. However, a man has made allegations of abuse relating to the early 1950s.
But if the suspect is dead, what are the police hoping to achieve?
As for these events being too distant in time, I believe that the police are currently engaged in investigating allegations made against a former Bishop of Chichester relating to events of the early 1950s. The Bishop concerned died in 1958!
Why are the police investigating a dead person?
That did occur to me simply because he cannot be charged or prosecuted. However, a man has made allegations of abuse relating to the early 1950s.
But if the suspect is dead, what are the police hoping to achieve?
I suspect there will be a decisive swing one way or the other before polling day. If Trump ends up coming home comfortably in Nevada and Arizona he'll probably take Colorado too. On this poll he's further behind in NH than PA yet other polling has him ahead. If he takes both states and Florida his 'path' looks pretty wide.
Not good enough for Trump. TX worryingly close for him.
I suspect there will be a decisive swing one way or the other before polling day. If Trump ends up coming home comfortably in Nevada and Arizona he'll probably take Colorado too. On this poll he's further behind in NH than PA yet other polling has him ahead. If he takes both states and Florida his 'path' looks pretty wide.
Dunno. Been trying to pseudo-crunch the numbers these past few days. Reckon the mini Emails Strikes Back 'scandal' might be worth a point or two to the Trumptons. But that won't be enough, particularly with the gearing caused by early voting (which looks mostly good for Hillary), to change the result. It may, however, lead to value in the state markets.
That all said, I have been forecasting that Trump will carry FL for a while. I'm not changing from my central forecast of Hillary by 284 to 254*
As for these events being too distant in time, I believe that the police are currently engaged in investigating allegations made against a former Bishop of Chichester relating to events of the early 1950s. The Bishop concerned died in 1958!
Why are the police investigating a dead person?
That did occur to me simply because he cannot be charged or prosecuted. However, a man has made allegations of abuse relating to the early 1950s.
But if the suspect is dead, what are the police hoping to achieve?
I have no answer - but it was in the press a few months ago. His elderly niece was defending him.
As for these events being too distant in time, I believe that the police are currently engaged in investigating allegations made against a former Bishop of Chichester relating to events of the early 1950s. The Bishop concerned died in 1958!
Why are the police investigating a dead person?
That did occur to me simply because he cannot be charged or prosecuted. However, a man has made allegations of abuse relating to the early 1950s.
But if the suspect is dead, what are the police hoping to achieve?
Nothing - other than to look as if they are doing something. It's the same nonsense we had when the police put an officer outside Edward Heath's home over similar allegations. Mind you, given the nonsense which is going on with the judicial inquiry into historic child abuse (which is a FUBAR on stilts) there's not much hope of anything sensible emerging when an investigation is confused with therapy for victims. The two are not the same.
It's pointless and cruel sentimentality to confuse the two.
Investigations should be focused, should be led by tough, trained investigators who know what they are doing, written in clear language and should aim to be quick. You can get 80-90% of what you need to know pretty quickly IMO. Sometimes spending 90% of your time on gathering 10% of the information is pointless.
I suspect there will be a decisive swing one way or the other before polling day. If Trump ends up coming home comfortably in Nevada and Arizona he'll probably take Colorado too. On this poll he's further behind in NH than PA yet other polling has him ahead. If he takes both states and Florida his 'path' looks pretty wide.
As for these events being too distant in time, I believe that the police are currently engaged in investigating allegations made against a former Bishop of Chichester relating to events of the early 1950s. The Bishop concerned died in 1958!
Why are the police investigating a dead person?
Presumably because the C of E might be corporately (?) liable and because potential victims are still alive.
But if so, there's a considerable difference between an innocent child or, possibly, young adult, and a striker, engaged in an illegal strike, attending an illegal picket and intend on intimidating police and company. While that is of itself no excuse for illegal behaviour on the part of the police, it does raise the bar in terms of where compensation might be due.
But that does not really deal with the issue of how it came about that a culture developed in a police force where such behavior happened. This was not one or two officers. This was many of them, all of whom thought that (a) they could/should do this; and (b) presumably thought they could/would get away with it.
A police force in which a significant number of officers is willing to ignore the law is not a police force worthy of the name. Was Orgreave a one-off? Or did this attitude obtain in other cases? And how can anyone be certain that it has not endured? After all, if there are no adverse consequences for misbehaving why wouldn't it endure? Why wouldn't it be passed on to new recruits as "the way we do things round here"?
It may not make sense to have an inquiry into Orgreave for the reasons which the Home Secretary has set out. But ensuring that the police force - in that region and elsewhere - has the right culture to such important matters as telling the truth to a court is, IMO, a pretty important part of the Home Secretary's job. It's not as if we haven't seen misbehavior by police forces since the mid-1980's.
Mrs. Free, the point you raise is valid but an enquiry into the events at Orgreave 32 years after the event is not the way to address it. There were those of us in the Home Office twenty years ago who were arguing for a Royal Commission into the police, which we said was long overdue. The politicians knocked the idea back and instead Ken Clarke set up the disastrous Sheehy inquiry, which was aimed more at cutting costs than producing a police service fit for the modern era.
Indeed. And that is why I have suggested a Parliamentary Commission into Police Standards instead - as per my comments below.
The Orgreave decision represents a great victory for the Arbeit Macht Frei wing of the Tory party! Herman Goering would have been so proud of Amber Rudd, and been confident that she would have found good reasons not to launch an enquiry into the opening of concentration camps in 1933.
Oh dear - outrage bus alert!
The metropolitan left outraged at the lack of opportunity to send the working class out to engage in hard manual labour which was bad for the planet and reduced life expectancy of the workers - jobs which they themselves obviously wouldn't touch with a barge pole.
As for these events being too distant in time, I believe that the police are currently engaged in investigating allegations made against a former Bishop of Chichester relating to events of the early 1950s. The Bishop concerned died in 1958!
Why are the police investigating a dead person?
That did occur to me simply because he cannot be charged or prosecuted. However, a man has made allegations of abuse relating to the early 1950s.
But if the suspect is dead, what are the police hoping to achieve?
Overtime?
Dawn raids on the Bishop's palace – televised by the Beeb..?
I suspect there will be a decisive swing one way or the other before polling day. If Trump ends up coming home comfortably in Nevada and Arizona he'll probably take Colorado too. On this poll he's further behind in NH than PA yet other polling has him ahead. If he takes both states and Florida his 'path' looks pretty wide.
As for these events being too distant in time, I believe that the police are currently engaged in investigating allegations made against a former Bishop of Chichester relating to events of the early 1950s. The Bishop concerned died in 1958!
Why are the police investigating a dead person?
Presumably because the C of E might be corporately (?) liable and because potential victims are still alive.
But if so, there's a considerable difference between an innocent child or, possibly, young adult, and a striker, engaged in an illegal strike, attending an illegal picket and intend on intimidating police and company. While that is of itself no excuse for illegal behaviour on the part of the police, it does raise the bar in terms of where compensation might be due.
Corporate responsibility is fair enough, but if that isn't the case simply because the victim is alive doesn't mean charges can be brought.
As for these events being too distant in time, I believe that the police are currently engaged in investigating allegations made against a former Bishop of Chichester relating to events of the early 1950s. The Bishop concerned died in 1958!
Why are the police investigating a dead person?
Presumably because the C of E might be corporately (?) liable and because potential victims are still alive.
But if so, there's a considerable difference between an innocent child or, possibly, young adult, and a striker, engaged in an illegal strike, attending an illegal picket and intend on intimidating police and company. While that is of itself no excuse for illegal behaviour on the part of the police, it does raise the bar in terms of where compensation might be due.
What you refer to as an illegal strike was not a criminal act - at most it was actionnable under civil law. The behaviour of some of the police did appear to breach the criminal law.
Wasn't the issue at Orgreave less how the miners and the police behaved (the miners were no angels, after all) and more the evidence which the police gave in the various cases they brought against arrested miners on riot charges?
I think that not one of those charged was ever convicted because the police evidence was deemed to be so unreliable.
Whatever you may think of the antics of the NUM and Scargill and the violent behavior of some miners, the police making up or embroidering evidence is a disgrace. This goes to the heart of our justice system. There was far too much of this going on within too many police forces during the 70's and 80's (the West Midlands police force was notorious for its behavior in many cases, not just the Birmingham 6, for instance).
Support for law and order is fine and desirable. Support for the police when they are themselves lawbreakers is not.
Precisely - but the judiciary at the time threw out the cases so nobody was actually convicted of riot. To hold a public enquiry at huge expense, when there is no real outcome to change (no officers left in job to fire, no convictions to overturn), would not really be in the public interest.
While it might be seen as a travesty of justice that any were prosecuted, the judges at the time dealt with that issue.
But there almost certainly will be an Inquiry at some stage even if it does take a further 10 years to launch it. Even a minority non-Tory Govt will see to that . It will remain a festering sore that does great discredit to our police force and system of justice.
And the further away we get, the less sensible that becomes. We know what happened at Orgreave - two opposing armies lined up for a pre planned battle, and consequently had one.
Rudd's decision has added a further dimension to the issue. It now smells of political and establishment cover up and evokes memories of recent paedophilia scandals etc. It will certainly not go away now!
Remind me...what did Labour do in their 13 years in power? 1997 to 2010, with monster majorities. Did they investigate Orgreave? Hillsborough? When memories could have been nearly two decades fresher?
A little nudge for your memory: they did fuck all.
I've (almost) had enough of investigating shyster bankers.
I'm willing - for the appropriate emoluments - to investigate shyster policemen, whether in South Yorkshire or elsewhere. And there are no polite words to describe my contempt for those who fail children by failing to investigate allegations of child abuse. Ruthlessness would be a mild word to describe the way I would approach people who acted in such a way.
As for these events being too distant in time, I believe that the police are currently engaged in investigating allegations made against a former Bishop of Chichester relating to events of the early 1950s. The Bishop concerned died in 1958!
Why are the police investigating a dead person?
Presumably because the C of E might be corporately (?) liable and because potential victims are still alive.
But if so, there's a considerable difference between an innocent child or, possibly, young adult, and a striker, engaged in an illegal strike, attending an illegal picket and intend on intimidating police and company. While that is of itself no excuse for illegal behaviour on the part of the police, it does raise the bar in terms of where compensation might be due.
If it's about compensation then the NUM (what's left of it), should use the proper forum - the Civil Courts.
Precisely - but the judiciary at the time threw out the cases so nobody was actually convicted of riot. To hold a public enquiry at huge expense, when there is no real outcome to change (no officers left in job to fire, no convictions to overturn), would not really be in the public interest.
While it might be seen as a travesty of justice that any were prosecuted, the judges at the time dealt with that issue.
Yes. True. The individual cases were thrown out.
But that does not really deal with the issue of how it came about that a culture developed in a police force where such behavior happened. This was not one or two officers. This was many of them, all of whom thought that (a) they could/should do this; and (b) presumably thought they could/would get away with it.
A police force in which a significant number of officers is willing to ignore the law is not a police force worthy of the name. Was Orgreave a one-off? Or did this attitude obtain in other cases? And how can anyone be certain that it has not endured? After all, if there are no adverse consequences for misbehaving why wouldn't it endure? Why wouldn't it be passed on to new recruits as "the way we do things round here"?
It may not make sense to have an inquiry into Orgreave for the reasons which the Home Secretary has set out. But ensuring that the police force - in that region and elsewhere - has the right culture to such important matters as telling the truth to a court is, IMO, a pretty important part of the Home Secretary's job. It's not as if we haven't seen misbehavior by police forces since the mid-1980's.
Of more relevance would be an inquiry into S Yorks Police's current handling of the Rotherham sex abuse scandal (and other related / parallel cases).
Indeed. It's not either/or, though. And perhaps an inquiry into police culture might help explain why that police force is at the heart of another prolonged episode where evidence has, allegedly, been lost/falsified/ignored and investigative decisions taken, again allegedly, for the wrong/political reasons.
That ought to form part of a Rotherham Inquiry.
I really don't see what could be learned from Orgreave that is relevant and either isn't already known or couldn't be found out through some better process.
Wasn't the issue at Orgreave less how the miners and the police behaved (the miners were no angels, after all) and more the evidence which the police gave in the various cases they brought against arrested miners on riot charges?
I think that not one of those charged was ever convicted because the police evidence was deemed to be so unreliable.
Whatever you may think of the antics of the NUM and Scargill and the violent behavior of some miners, the police making up or embroidering evidence is a disgrace. This goes to the heart of our justice system. There was far too much of this going on within too many police forces during the 70's and 80's (the West Midlands police force was notorious for its behavior in many cases, not just the Birmingham 6, for instance).
Support for law and order is fine and desirable. Support for the police when they are themselves lawbreakers is not.
Precisely - but the judiciary at the time threw out the cases so nobody was actually convicted of riot. To hold a public enquiry at huge expense, when there is no real outcome to change (no officers left in job to fire, no convictions to overturn), would not really be in the public interest.
While it might be seen as a travesty of justice that any were prosecuted, the judges at the time dealt with that issue.
But there almost certainly will be an Inquiry at some stage even if it does take a further 10 years to launch it. Even a minority non-Tory Govt will see to that . It will remain a festering sore that does great discredit to our police force and system of justice.
And the further away we get, the less sensible that becomes. We know what happened at Orgreave - two opposing armies lined up for a pre planned battle, and consequently had one.
Rudd's decision has added a further dimension to the issue. It now smells of political and establishment cover up and evokes memories of recent paedophilia scandals etc. It will certainly not go away now!
Remind me...what did Labour do in their 13 years in power? 1997 to 2010, with monster majorities. Did they investigate Orgreave? Hillsborough? When memories could have been nearly two decades fresher?
A little nudge for your memory: they did fuck all.
I raised that question myself earlier in the thread. The answer is perhaps to be found - at least in part - in the outcome of the Hillsborough Inquiry.
Wasn't the issue at Orgreave less how the miners and the police behaved (the miners were no angels, after all) and more the evidence which the police gave in the various cases they brought against arrested miners on riot charges?
I think that not one of those charged was ever convicted because the police evidence was deemed to be so unreliable.
Whatever you may think of the antics of the NUM and Scargill and the violent behavior of some miners, the police making up or embroidering evidence is a disgrace. This goes to the heart of our justice system. There was far too much of this going on within too many police forces during the 70's and 80's (the West Midlands police force was notorious for its behavior in many cases, not just the Birmingham 6, for instance).
Support for law and order is fine and desirable. Support for the police when they are themselves lawbreakers is not.
Precisely - but the judiciary at the time threw out the cases so nobody was actually convicted of riot. To hold a public enquiry at huge expense, when there is no real outcome to change (no officers left in job to fire, no convictions to overturn), would not really be in the public interest.
While it might be seen as a travesty of justice that any were prosecuted, the judges at the time dealt with that issue.
But there almost certainly will be an Inquiry at some stage even if it does take a further 10 years to launch it. Even a minority non-Tory Govt will see to that . It will remain a festering sore that does great discredit to our police force and system of justice.
And the further away we get, the less sensible that becomes. We know what happened at Orgreave - two opposing armies lined up for a pre planned battle, and consequently had one.
Rudd's decision has added a further dimension to the issue. It now smells of political and establishment cover up and evokes memories of recent paedophilia scandals etc. It will certainly not go away now!
Remind me...what did Labour do in their 13 years in power? 1997 to 2010, with monster majorities. Did they investigate Orgreave? Hillsborough? When memories could have been nearly two decades fresher?
A little nudge for your memory: they did fuck all.
As for these events being too distant in time, I believe that the police are currently engaged in investigating allegations made against a former Bishop of Chichester relating to events of the early 1950s. The Bishop concerned died in 1958!
Why are the police investigating a dead person?
Presumably because the C of E might be corporately (?) liable and because potential victims are still alive.
But if so, there's a considerable difference between an innocent child or, possibly, young adult, and a striker, engaged in an illegal strike, attending an illegal picket and intend on intimidating police and company. While that is of itself no excuse for illegal behaviour on the part of the police, it does raise the bar in terms of where compensation might be due.
There is no corporate liability for the criminal offence of child abuse. Civil liability is another matter. But that is not a police matter.
@Jobabob You'll have to get yourself on all the pundit shows if Trump loses whilst winning Wisconsin. It's the sort of state where I *can* see him winning - but only if he's taking the election overall.
Wasn't the issue at Orgreave less how the miners and the police behaved (the miners were no angels, after all) and more the evidence which the police gave in the various cases they brought against arrested miners on riot charges?
I think that not one of those charged was ever convicted because the police evidence was deemed to be so unreliable.
Whatever you may think of the antics of the NUM and Scargill and the violent behavior of some miners, the police making up or embroidering evidence is a disgrace. This goes to the heart of our justice system. There was far too much of this going on within too many police forces during the 70's and 80's (the West Midlands police force was notorious for its behavior in many cases, not just the Birmingham 6, for instance).
Support for law and order is fine and desirable. Support for the police when they are themselves lawbreakers is not.
Precisely - but the judiciary at the time threw out the cases so nobody was actually convicted of riot. To hold a public enquiry at huge expense, when there is no real outcome to change (no officers left in job to fire, no convictions to overturn), would not really be in the public interest.
While it might be seen as a travesty of justice that any were prosecuted, the judges at the time dealt with that issue.
But there almost certainly will be an Inquiry at some stage even if it does take a further 10 years to launch it. Even a minority non-Tory Govt will see to that . It will remain a festering sore that does great discredit to our police force and system of justice.
And the further away we get, the less sensible that becomes. We know what happened at Orgreave - two opposing armies lined up for a pre planned battle, and consequently had one.
Rudd's decision has added a further dimension to the issue. It now smells of political and establishment cover up and evokes memories of recent paedophilia scandals etc. It will certainly not go away now!
Remind me...what did Labour do in their 13 years in power? 1997 to 2010, with monster majorities. Did they investigate Orgreave? Hillsborough? When memories could have been nearly two decades fresher?
A little nudge for your memory: they did fuck all.
I raised that question myself earlier in the thread. The answer is perhaps to be found - at least in part - in the outcome of the Hillsborough Inquiry.
Sorry mate, but Hypocrisy has nicked the wheels off your Outrage Bus....
As for these events being too distant in time, I believe that the police are currently engaged in investigating allegations made against a former Bishop of Chichester relating to events of the early 1950s. The Bishop concerned died in 1958!
Why are the police investigating a dead person?
Presumably because the C of E might be corporately (?) liable and because potential victims are still alive.
But if so, there's a considerable difference between an innocent child or, possibly, young adult, and a striker, engaged in an illegal strike, attending an illegal picket and intend on intimidating police and company. While that is of itself no excuse for illegal behaviour on the part of the police, it does raise the bar in terms of where compensation might be due.
There is no corporate liability for the criminal offence of child abuse. Civil liability is another matter. But that is not a police matter.
Fair enough. Do you have any suggestions for why the police might be investigating someone dead for more than half a century?
As for these events being too distant in time, I believe that the police are currently engaged in investigating allegations made against a former Bishop of Chichester relating to events of the early 1950s. The Bishop concerned died in 1958!
Why are the police investigating a dead person?
Presumably because the C of E might be corporately (?) liable and because potential victims are still alive.
But if so, there's a considerable difference between an innocent child or, possibly, young adult, and a striker, engaged in an illegal strike, attending an illegal picket and intend on intimidating police and company. While that is of itself no excuse for illegal behaviour on the part of the police, it does raise the bar in terms of where compensation might be due.
There is no corporate liability for the criminal offence of child abuse. Civil liability is another matter. But that is not a police matter.
Fair enough. Do you have any suggestions for why the police might be investigating someone dead for more than half a century?
I assume the inquiry might incriminate others. For example, those who lied to the initial investigation.
Dunno. Been trying to pseudo-crunch the numbers these past few days. Reckon the mini Emails Strikes Back 'scandal' might be worth a point or two to the Trumptons. But that won't be enough, particularly with the gearing caused by early voting (which looks mostly good for Hillary), to change the result. It may, however, lead to value in the state markets.
That all said, I have been forecasting that Trump will carry FL for a while. I'm not changing from my central forecast of Hillary by 284 to 254*
Dunno. Been trying to pseudo-crunch the numbers these past few days. Reckon the mini Emails Strikes Back 'scandal' might be worth a point or two to the Trumptons. But that won't be enough, particularly with the gearing caused by early voting (which looks mostly good for Hillary), to change the result. It may, however, lead to value in the state markets.
That all said, I have been forecasting that Trump will carry FL for a while. I'm not changing from my central forecast of Hillary by 284 to 254*
Precisely - but the judiciary at the time threw out the cases so nobody was actually convicted of riot. To hold a public enquiry at huge expense, when there is no real outcome to change (no officers left in job to fire, no convictions to overturn), would not really be in the public interest.
While it might be seen as a travesty of justice that any were prosecuted, the judges at the time dealt with that issue.
But there almost certainly will be an Inquiry at some stage even if it does take a further 10 years to launch it. Even a minority non-Tory Govt will see to that . It will remain a festering sore that does great discredit to our police force and system of justice.
And the further away we get, the less sensible that becomes. We know what happened at Orgreave - two opposing armies lined up for a pre planned battle, and consequently had one.
Rudd's decision has added a further dimension to the issue. It now smells of political and establishment cover up and evokes memories of recent paedophilia scandals etc. It will certainly not go away now!
Remind me...what did Labour do in their 13 years in power? 1997 to 2010, with monster majorities. Did they investigate Orgreave? Hillsborough? When memories could have been nearly two decades fresher?
A little nudge for your memory: they did fuck all.
I raised that question myself earlier in the thread. The answer is perhaps to be found - at least in part - in the outcome of the Hillsborough Inquiry.
Sorry mate, but Hypocrisy has nicked the wheels off your Outrage Bus....
I think the Arbeit Macht Frei = Tory gave it away. We have here a latter day Simon Wiesenthal, hunting Nazis/Tories for decade after decade after decade.
Perhaps Maggie is actually alive and well in South America.
Dunno. Been trying to pseudo-crunch the numbers these past few days. Reckon the mini Emails Strikes Back 'scandal' might be worth a point or two to the Trumptons. But that won't be enough, particularly with the gearing caused by early voting (which looks mostly good for Hillary), to change the result. It may, however, lead to value in the state markets.
That all said, I have been forecasting that Trump will carry FL for a while. I'm not changing from my central forecast of Hillary by 284 to 254*
Comments
I think that not one of those charged was ever convicted because the police evidence was deemed to be so unreliable.
Whatever you may think of the antics of the NUM and Scargill and the violent behavior of some miners, the police making up or embroidering evidence is a disgrace. This goes to the heart of our justice system. There was far too much of this going on within too many police forces during the 70's and 80's (the West Midlands police force was notorious for its behavior in many cases, not just the Birmingham 6, for instance).
Support for law and order is fine and desirable. Support for the police when they are themselves lawbreakers is not.
For a bit of fun I designed a game. Nothing to do with the EU or politics.
It only works on a phone or a tablet, as you need to be able to touch the screen.
http://flexit.nojam.com/
It works on both Android and Apple :-)
(Apart from when jogging.)
http://www.redsn0w.us/2016/10/half-of-galaxy-note-7-owners-will.html?m=1I'm
Buy the OnePlus 3. Essentially the same phone. Half the price.
Awful for Samsung, every time I go to the airport there's an announcement saying that they are banned, even in checked luggage.
Some.
While it might be seen as a travesty of justice that any were prosecuted, the judges at the time dealt with that issue.
Post-brexit we'll be building one of these every week.
It's gonna be great.
Thanks for the heads up.
Mr. E, there seems an endless appetite to rake over the past.
Were the scum who dropped concrete blocks off a bridge, killing a 'scab' going to work, ever caught and prosecuted? [ it was before my time so I've heard the story but not the outcome].
The rozzers are far from perfect - and they never will be, that's just unrealistic - but raking Orgreave over at vast expense to provide no discernible benefit is self-indulgent codswallop.
Convicted of Manslaughter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_David_Wilkie
TX - Clinton 44 .. Trump 46 - 1,940
MN - Clinton 47 .. Trump 38 - 639
NV - Clinton 43 .. Trump 43 - 887
AZ - Clinton 43 .. Trump 43 - 1,342
CO - Clinton 44 .. Trump 39 - 1,417
GA - Clinton 44 .. Trump 46 - 2,517
SC - Clinton 42 .. Trump 46 - 1,769
OH - Clinton 41 .. Trump 44 - 1,585
VA - Clinton 48 .. Trump 39 - 2,005
NH - Clinton 48 .. Trump 39 - 633
FL - Clinton 46 .. Trump 45 - 2,634
NC - Clinton 47 .. Trump 43 - 1.383
IA - Clinton 40 .. Trump 45 - 905
PA - Clinton 49 .. Trump 41 - 2,108
UT - Clinton 30 .. Trump 33 .. McMullin 26 - 988
https://www.surveymonkey.com/elections/map?poll=sm-lv-cps
But that does not really deal with the issue of how it came about that a culture developed in a police force where such behavior happened. This was not one or two officers. This was many of them, all of whom thought that (a) they could/should do this; and (b) presumably thought they could/would get away with it.
A police force in which a significant number of officers is willing to ignore the law is not a police force worthy of the name. Was Orgreave a one-off? Or did this attitude obtain in other cases? And how can anyone be certain that it has not endured? After all, if there are no adverse consequences for misbehaving why wouldn't it endure? Why wouldn't it be passed on to new recruits as "the way we do things round here"?
It may not make sense to have an inquiry into Orgreave for the reasons which the Home Secretary has set out. But ensuring that the police force - in that region and elsewhere - has the right culture to such important matters as telling the truth to a court is, IMO, a pretty important part of the Home Secretary's job. It's not as if we haven't seen misbehavior by police forces since the mid-1980's.
It is not exactly a forward move in the history of music.
[Not really, I just miss Tapestry. Maybe Lucky can back me up instead? EDIT: I see malcolmg rode in just before me with the tin foil tam o shanter.]
Those are all matters which could be usefully looked at.
Raking over the events of one day is pointless not least because it seems to me that some of those calling for it simply want to use it to (a) turn the miners into innocent victims; and (b) tar the Tories again with the muck from old battles rather than learn useful lessons for now and the future.
But that doesn't mean that there aren't useful lessons to be learned about how to keep public servants honest. A Parliamentary Commission on standards within the police (similar to the Commission on Banking Standards, which produced a very fine report and some useful changes) might be one way to go.
Apples airpod offerings are shit.
An article for the FT, eh? Did Mr Katwala get paid for this amazing insight, I wonder?
Some of us (*buffs nails*) have been saying much the same for some time -
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/05/31/mind-the-gap/
In 08 and 12 pollsters had trouble polling Hispanics. I'll be particularly interested to see the polling against the actual in NV, CO, AZ, NM and FL.
The tin miners, chandlers and coopers went the same way - it's called progress.
Children may still be at risk now. I'm far more concerned about the sexual abuse of nearly one and a half thousand children (a third of whom were boys) and the utter failure of the authorities locally to take it seriously and investigate it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/37818411
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-what-if-clinton-wins-north-carolina-and-loses-pennsylvania/?ex_cid=2016-forecast
Overtime?
And how we all laughed.....
Michael McDonald – @ElectProject
NV #earlyvote update: 457K voted, 65% of 2012 levels. Dem lead steady at +7.9 points. Reps need to make move soon. Clock starting to run out
Very similar to 2012.
That all said, I have been forecasting that Trump will carry FL for a while. I'm not changing from my central forecast of Hillary by 284 to 254*
http://www.270towin.com/maps/QxjkN
*DYOR – longstanding PBers will recall I have been way too pessimistic on the DEM ECV in recent years.
It's pointless and cruel sentimentality to confuse the two.
Investigations should be focused, should be led by tough, trained investigators who know what they are doing, written in clear language and should aim to be quick. You can get 80-90% of what you need to know pretty quickly IMO. Sometimes spending 90% of your time on gathering 10% of the information is pointless.
But if so, there's a considerable difference between an innocent child or, possibly, young adult, and a striker, engaged in an illegal strike, attending an illegal picket and intend on intimidating police and company. While that is of itself no excuse for illegal behaviour on the part of the police, it does raise the bar in terms of where compensation might be due.
The metropolitan left outraged at the lack of opportunity to send the working class out to engage in hard manual labour which was bad for the planet and reduced life expectancy of the workers - jobs which they themselves obviously wouldn't touch with a barge pole.
A little nudge for your memory: they did fuck all.
I'm willing - for the appropriate emoluments - to investigate shyster policemen, whether in South Yorkshire or elsewhere. And there are no polite words to describe my contempt for those who fail children by failing to investigate allegations of child abuse. Ruthlessness would be a mild word to describe the way I would approach people who acted in such a way.
I will await the call.......
I really don't see what could be learned from Orgreave that is relevant and either isn't already known or couldn't be found out through some better process.
Perhaps Maggie is actually alive and well in South America.