The decision by Amber Rudd (Report, 1 November) not to sanction a public inquiry into the events at the Orgreave coking plant during the miners’ strike is clearly misguided on a number of counts. In recent days many misleading accounts have been given, particularly from politicians who were nowhere near Orgreave on 18 June 1984, yet speak with great authority about what happened. I was the only journalist present throughout the whole of the picketing at the plant over a three-week period, reporting for the Guardian. My sympathies lay with the mining communities during the strike but my reporting was always impartial. I kept a detailed timescale of the events that led up to day of the “battle”, which this newspaper published.
There were just over 3,000 police on duty during the picketing of the coking plant. Around 6,000 miners and others gathered near the plant that day, a far greater number of people than had been there earlier. There had been very little, if any, violence, merely shouting and robust pushing and shoving when lorries either arrived or left the plant. Miners even played football from time to time with the police officers. But on June 18 there was a huge influx of extra miners and many other people who were not, but were there to support the striking miners’ cause and wanted a more aggressive confrontation. When Arthur Scargill, the then NUM leader, arrived the tempo of the picketing changed dramatically. Lamp-posts were uprooted, a wall dismantled and barricades set up. The “battle” began just after 7am. The first convoy of lorries arrived around 8am and it was then that the assistant chief constable of South Yorkshire police, Tony Clements, called in the mounted section of 42 horses.
The police did come under fire before a charge was made, contrary to what is now being said. Bricks, stones, sticks and bottles of fluid were thrown into the police lines and at least one riot shield was set on fire. There were three charges made in all to try and disperse the mass of people and allow snatch squads to run into the crowd. Truncheons were drawn, not always in self-defence, and the fighting began. There is no doubt that people were beaten by the police and then dragged back behind the police lines, but police officers were also openly attacked and injured, including one who was hit on the head. At the top of the field, metal stakes were set into the ground to prevent any horses galloping further and a car was set alight to form a further barrier. The confrontation lasted until 1pm with running battles, fist fights and truncheons being used. What has not been made clear before is that not all the people confronting the police were miners.
If an inquiry had been granted this would have emerged and, more importantly, the police would have had to explain their own behaviour after the event, in relation to arrests made and the possible falsifying of evidence. By refusing to hold an inquiry Amber Rudd has stifled open debate about the event, giving the impression there is much to hide, when in fact a proper examination of the confrontation would have produced an accurate account of what happened on that dreadful day.
Malcolm Pithers
Wakefield, Yorkshire
• Simon Jenkins (Opinion, 3 November) may be right to conclude that a public inquiry would be costly, and unlikely to reveal anything we don’t know already – so perhaps there shouldn’t be one. But that doesn’t mean leaving Orgreave in the past. There is clear evidence from serving officers that individuals within the police committed criminal offences in relation to the events at Orgreave. This should be investigated – just as all allegations of serious lawbreaking should be investigated. Our inability to hold police officers to judicial account in politically sensitive actions continues to cause deep divisions and animosity in our communities – and while public inquiries may have done little to heal these scars, a proper attempt to prosecute lawbreakers on all sides just might do more. The miners were charged and acquitted, but the police (and possibly a few surviving politicians) have serious questions to answer.
Nik Holmes
Uttoxeter, Staffordshire
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
