Re-enacting the Battle of Orgreave is pointless

Telegraph

2 days ago

Oh dear, an inquiry into Orgreave. The name refers to the Yorkshire coking depot where, in June 1984, Arthur Scargill's violent flying pickets failed to prevent delivery lorries leaving the plant with coke to fire the Scunthorpe steel furnaces.
It was a turning point in the miners' strike. Scargill's mass picketing of the Saltley coke depot in 1972 had closed the plant, humiliating the Conservative government of Edward Heath. His defeat at Orgreave ensured that history did not repeat itself. The police came out on top. Fuel supplies never failed. Margaret Thatcher's government eventually won. After nearly eight more bitter months, the strike collapsed. Scargill had lost.
Ever since, the Left has been obsessed with Orgreave, alleging police brutality and mendacity, and repeatedly called for an inquiry. Some hope to find documents implicating Mrs Thatcher, such as they alleged existed, but did not exist, in the case of the Hillsborough disaster. At Hillsborough, as at Orgreave, the South Yorkshire police were the objects of their anger.
It is true that court cases against the pickets collapsed because the police evidence against them was discredited. The fact of that collapse, however, would suggest that justice was done. If police misconduct was not sufficiently arraigned, there is what is now called the Independent Office for Police Conduct to handle this. Why an inquiry, 40 years on?
For some strange reason, Theresa May, after becoming prime minister in July 2016, briefed (indirectly) that there would be an Orgreave inquiry. Perhaps her poor relations with the police, when she was home secretary, had something do with it. Anyway, two months after making this suggestion, she wisely dropped it.
But the Left kept on complaining and, in Labour's general election manifesto last year, the following promise was made: 'Labour will also ensure, through an investigation or inquiry, that the truth about the events at Orgreave comes to light.'
The clear implication of that sentence is that the truth has, until now, been concealed. Labour's version of the truth is that the police, covertly directed by the evil Thatcher, behaved appallingly. Given this highly political background, it will be hard for any inquiry to look at the matter dispassionately.
In terms of presentation, the Government seems to be hoping that this is a repeat of the Hillsborough Inquiry. The Hillsborough report, produced by James Jones, the former Bishop of Liverpool, was entitled The Patronising Disposition of Unaccountable Power. It was widely admired for its account of what the families had been through.
So the Orgreave report is also to be chaired by a bishop, the Right Reverend Dr Pete Wilcox, Bishop of Sheffield. Episcopal purple is supposed to ward off accusations of political bias, but Bishop Wilcox will be under enormous pressure. He says he looks forward to 'engaging with stakeholders', but I wonder who will qualify for that description.
Since the energy supplies of the entire country depended on Scargill's pickets failing wherever they tried to attack, all of us alive at that time are stakeholders. More directly, so were the steelworks, so was the government, so were the police, who had to enforce the law, and so were those miners, more than a quarter of the total workforce at the time of Orgreave, who went on working. They did not agree with the strike and resented Scargill denying his members a ballot on it. Many were victims of NUM violence.
The announcement of the inquiry goes against the Government's own current work of looking to see whether inquiries are worthwhile. There are so many nowadays, few leading to recommendations that get implemented, but still costing literally hundreds of millions of pounds. Sir Keir Starmer privately acknowledges that they should be cut back.
For an inquiry to begin, the Government now wants to require evidence of 'a clear present public benefit'. It does not want inquiries to be merely public therapy sessions. It wants them only if they can address an issue that needs addressing now.
How can anyone say that this intensely political issue of more than 40 years ago fits that criterion?
Politeness on all sides
Guess what happened in our village last Saturday? Sir Keir and Lady Starmer came. The occasion was the lovely wedding in our parish church of the daughter of a long-standing legal colleague. And guess what happened? Nothing. I think this uneventfulness should be celebrated.
First, it was a tribute to the security people, who were very low-key and courteous.
Second, it reflected well on the parents of the bride, who had kept the information close.
Third, it reflected well on those villagers who did know who was present but did not choose to vent any of their mainly unfriendly current feelings towards the Prime Minister.
Finally, the Starmers behaved well, and everyone liked them for it. My wife and I were close witnesses as they sat in the pew behind us, and we can attest that they were unassuming, friendly and demanded no place of honour. They stayed for a flatteringly long time at the reception and seemed to be quietly enjoying themselves.
Perhaps none of this needs saying, but I mention it because the age of social media tends to erode the concept of privacy which is so important in civilisation. This was, in all respects, a civilised occasion. Vice-president J D Vance is reported to be heading for a short holiday in the Cotswolds next month. I hope the Vance family will be treated with similar politeness.