Orgreave Treachery Britain Is At War

The Home Secretary has said the Government will not pursue an inquiry into the notorious clash between police and miners at Orgreave.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

This is a pivotal point in British history.

The state crushed the people.

Now the people are told Law doesn't apply to them.

This is treachery. This is war.

I shall see you on the streets.

a reply to: Kester

2:23 Who decided that was the right thing to do? (And never mind the subliminal programming with the turbine.)

a reply to: Kester

Its an absolute disgrace that there is no official inquiry into the events at Orgreave.

The governments manipulation and use of police was essentially an assault on the British people as a whole and the willingness of the police to be used as such and the levels of violence and duplicity they used just shows which side of the fence they are on.

Thatcher and those she represented believed they were above the law - this decision by Amber Rudd shows they still are - and they treat anyone who disagreed with them or sought an alternative lifestyle with utter contempt.

Events at The Battle of the Beanfield a year later are another example of the police being used to suppress and brutalise any dissenting voices.

a reply to: Kester

I think this is sad for two reasons. One, of course if there are people within the police or government that need to be held to account, then they should be. Two, if the findings indicate that the violence and intimidation perpetrated by those working in Scargills army (whether or not they were actually genuine miners) was of such a level that this was to en extent inevitable, then those people should also be held to account. I remember the time very very well and if there is any suggestion that a lot of those manning the pickets were nothing other than non violent innocent victims in this then that in itself is a whitewash.

Kester, I'm sure you don't give a toss if the police/non striking miners were attacked, you obviously aren't too bothered if the law should or shouldn't apply to the people doing the attacking.

a reply to: Kester

The fact that there is to be no investigation into this matter, should go out as a signal to all of those who love freedom and liberty, and equality between the social strata. The police are not supposed to do the bidding of government. They are supposed to uphold the law. They are supposed to be public servants, not a government sponsored selection of henchmen.

The striking miners should have been permitted to continue to strike, the police never should have been involved or present, leave alone sent in to beat heads and break the strike. That is not their purpose. They have no purpose at an industrial action, until the law of the land is broken. They should have known their place, but did not and that should be worthy of an investigation at least.

a reply to: TrueBrit

In absolute agreement with you.

But they were also used as agent provocateurs posing as miners stirring up trouble and even instigating violence in order to justify the use of violence against the striking miners.

The same tactics were later used at Wapping and other industrial disputes.

At the time the police were used as a government weapon to be utilised as they saw fit regardless of the legality of their deployment.
There is nothing to suggest that if so desired they wouldn't be used in such a fashion again.

a reply to: Freeborn

The tactics of which you speak are commonly used to usurp the legitimate aims of groups opposed to government positions, and which often gain popular support. Animal rights activists, peace protest groups, and other similar organisations have also been infiltrated by undercover officers, who are often under a remit to steer groups toward behaviour which renders them criminal before the law, and the population, removing legitimacy from their general message, and putting their most effective members behind bars.

There was a scandal last year or this year, in which it was revealed that some officers had fathered children with women they had used to gain access to these groups, or had started relationships with in order to legitimise their position within the group being targeted. Some of these relationships lasted years.

The unit which ran these undercovers and others, probably arose from whatever unit was running things back during the Orgreave days.

Although it's definitely a disgrace, I'm not persuaded that this is the revolution-inspiring crisis that is described in the OP. There have been far bigger scandals in British public office that have never had an inquiry. The example that is foremost in my mind is the mid-1970s plot/s to bring down Harold Wilson. Massively documented, confessions a-plenty, huge significance, many witnesses still alive. But not a whisper on the official record, despite its justly-deserved nickname of 'Britain's Watergate'.

The harpy is well primed.

The true role of the police is to subvert dissent and protect the elite from us. You'll see this is true if you ever go to a WTO/G7/G20 protest or any other protest against globalisation as they tend to be more heavy handed than at any other time. That's when the desire to be noble and protect the public from criminals which most of them join up for gives way to having armored cars, military technology and power with anonymity and without oversight.

originally posted by: MagnaCarta2015
The true role of the police is to subvert dissent and protect the elite from us.

"Possession is nine-tenths of the law"!

a reply to: MagnaCarta2015


The fight back against that came from the police themselves in 2012.


After the big police march attended by at least 35,000 police and supporters there was a big trade union march.

The chairman of the Police Federation made a video statement addressing the union supporters saying, "You will see police alongside you. I want you to know they are marching with you". Then he suddenly died.

A fit man, fond of very long walks, suddenly died two weeks short of retirement having said he would increase his political battle when retirement freed him from the constrictions of his contract.


A very large proportion of British police want to work honourably.

The Association of Chief Police Officers, now replaced by the National Police Chiefs' Council, said this.

How do we police?
Neighbourhood policing and the Peelian Principles are the heart and soul of the British model.

Peelian Principles
1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.
3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and
maintain the respect of the public.
4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of
physical force.
5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial
service to the law.
6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise
of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.
7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are
the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention
to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

The Office of Constable
Every sworn police officer in England and Wales is a ‘Constable’ regardless of rank.

wyp-unison.org.uk...

They're all constables, equal under Law, trained, paid and having sworn an oath to do what all of us should do. The big difference in their lives is when we can recoil from horrible scenes, they've sworn to push on through.

The whole authority thing is just word games tricking consent.


The truth here is Hillsborough, Orgreave and the Beanfield were shoddy eighties style anti-constabulary black-ops. Planned without knowledge of what the internet would make possible. Now it's all falling apart. The can't have their planned anti-constabulary fake Orgreave inquiry because everyone close to the issue must have information on the planning, government involvement, traitor spook involvement and military involvement, in order to achieve closure.

The Beanfield inquiry will never happen for the same reasons. Far too many leaderless outspoken individuals saying military dressed as police took part in the worst of the violence.

Constables have been murdered for defending fair policing. Constables have taken their own lives after being bullied because they exposed corruption, lack of investigation into the spook controlled entrapment schemes used to control politicians for example.

The constables serving now are not responsible for the actions of brutal misled fools in the past.

The constable serving now deserve our support more than ever before.


No doubt the government advisers will be racking their little brains trying to dig themselves out of this.