Orgreave inquiry: Why now and what are the crucial questions it seeks to answer?
The revival of campaigning about the Orgreave injustices developed after the Guardian published an article in April 2012 making the link between the South Yorkshire police operation in 1984 and a collapsed trial in 1985, and the 1989 Hillsborough disaster, in which 97 people were unlawfully killed. The same force, led by the same chief constable, Peter Wright, was responsible for the disaster, and orchestrated a false narrative to blame the victims.
The BBC in Yorkshire then broadcast a documentary in October 2012, highlighting that dozens of police officers' statements alleging criminal behaviour by miners at Orgreave had the same opening paragraphs, apparently dictated to them by detectives. The Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign (OTJC) formed after that, and it has argued for 13 years that the injustices endure today and an inquiry is needed. Yvette Cooper began calling for an inquiry in 2015 when she was shadow home secretary, and Labour has pledged to hold an inquiry in every election manifesto since 2017.
OTJC founding member Joe Rollin said they expect the inquiry to finally access all relevant documents, including some that have remained classified on grounds of national security. The overall police operational plan has never been made public.
The National Union of Mineworkers has always believed the police attacks were pre-planned, kettling miners into a field and deploying strategically positioned mounted officers, dog handlers and units with short shields and truncheons.
During the miners' strike police set up roadblocks across routes to mining areas to prevent people picketing, but many miners who were at Orgreave still talk with bewilderment about the police directing them into the site that day.
No police officer has ever been held to account for the apparently dictated statements and false evidence that was used to charge 95 men with riot and unlawful assembly. All defendants were acquitted in July 1985 after a 48-day trial in which defence barristers repeatedly accused police officers in court of lying and fabricating evidence.
A 2015 report by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (now the Independent Office for Police Conduct) said it found suggestions that senior South Yorkshire police officers later acknowledged there was evidence of perjury, and in effect covered it up.
The IPCC referred to a note regarding the force's 1991 settlement of a civil claim, paying 39 miners £425,000 compensation but with no admission of liability. 'The note also raises further doubts about the ethical standards and complicity of officers high up in [South Yorkshire police],' the report said.
The inquiry will be a panel of relevant experts, chaired by Pete Wilcox, the bishop of Sheffield. This builds on the pioneering Hillsborough Independent Panel (HIP), chaired by the then bishop of Liverpool, James Jones. Unlike that panel, the Orgreave inquiry will be statutory, which means it has powers to compel people to provide information. Wilcox will develop the terms of reference, format and panel membership in consultation with the Home Office. He said that he expects the panel to begin its work this autumn.
After it emerged last month that Northumbria police had destroyed their documents relating to Orgreave, Cooper, now the home secretary, said she has written to all police forces believed to have relevant records, saying they must be preserved.
The inquiry may follow the model of the HIP, which considered only documentary evidence and did not hold hearings where witnesses such as retired police officers would be questioned in person. It is presumed the Orgreave inquiry will produce a report that will seek to illuminate the full truth of the police operation and prosecutions.
Campaigners also hope that it will help redress the broader historical narrative, the negative portrayal of the miners in large sections of the media, and prime minister Margaret Thatcher labelling them 'the enemy within', while her government fully supported the police.
Given the four decades since these traumatic events of the 1980s, it appears unlikely anybody could be prosecuted, whatever the inquiry finds. But Cooper did not rule it out, saying she could not pre-empt the inquiry's findings, or any outcome.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
28 minutes ago
- BBC News
Police pay rise of 4.2% derided as 'barely treading water'
A government-backed pay rise of 4.2% for police officers in England and Wales "barely treads water", the association representing front-line officers Police Federation said the pay rise was "worth the price of a Big Mac per shift" and would not stop "record levels of resignations, record mental health absences or the record number of assaults on officers".The organisation, which represents more than 145,000 officers, said it would now ask its members whether they accept or reject the home secretary said the increase, which is marginally above the current rate of inflation of 4.1% and is recommended by an independent review body, was "a clear signal of our gratitude". The amount is also above the 2.8% proposed by ministers in December, for which police forces will mean the starting salary for a police constable will go up by £1,256 to £31,164. The typical salary for a constable who has been in post for six years will be £50,256 and the average salary for a chief superintendent will be £98, addition, on-call, away from home and hardship allowances will be increased by £10 and London weighting will also rise by 4.2%.Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said: "Our brave police officers work day and night, often making enormous sacrifices to keep us safe."She added: "We are committed to investing in the front line and supporting officers who work every day to tackle crime, keep our streets safe and protect our communities."The pay award will be supported by £120 million from the Home Office to "help protect police force budgets", the government Police Federation said while it welcomed the government's decision to reject police chief constables' calls for a pay rise of 3.8%, the award was not national chair Brian Booth said: "After more than a decade of real terms pay cuts, this award does little to reverse the long-term decline in officers' living standards or address the crisis policing faces."British Transport Police Federation chair Stuart Cowan said 4.2% "is simply nowhere near enough".He said: "Officers who are battered and bruised and stretched to their physical and psychological limits are worth so much more than repeated paltry pay increases."But the National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) said the 4.2% increase was above inflation and "it is essential that we attract and retain the best people into policing through competitive pay".NPCC lead for pay and conditions, Asst Ch Officer Philip Wells, said the pay award "is what we believe our officers deserve and reflects the nature of the work they are required to undertake to keep our streets safe".He added it was "vitally important that additional costs for pay are fully funded if we are to maintain services and be able to continue to invest in areas such as neighbourhood policing and technology".
Telegraph
28 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Capitulate to unions, and you undermine democracy
I have one abiding memory from my early school days in the mid-1980s. It isn't of a favourite teacher, playground companion, or a treasured lesson. No, what stands out most vividly in my mind is Strike Day. It might not have been every week, but it was regular enough to take on the rhythm of a national ritual. As a five-year-old, I adored it. The anticipation was electric. Strike Day meant I had a whole, uninterrupted day with my mother. Just the two of us. It was bliss: no school! But of course, for my parents, it was a different story. It was a burden. My mother would have to call in absent from work, adjust her commitments, rearrange the day. Eventually, my parents, like many working-class families trying to climb, had enough. They opted to send me to an independent school. At least there, the calendar didn't tremble with every union whim. Thanks to Margaret Thatcher, these disturbances came to an end. The grip of the unions was broken. Britain felt governable again. We thought the era of union rule had passed into history. But Strike Day has returned. Since July 2024, several hundred thousand working days have been lost to strike action. In the first quarter of 2025 alone, 160,000 working days disappeared into the black hole of industrial action. Since the peak in late 2022, over 1.6 million working days have been lost. Unsurprisingly, public sector productivity has plunged – now 4.2 per cent below pre-Covid levels. The BMA – a union which now more closely resembles a political party than a medical association – recently called a five-day strike because its demand for a pay rise of over 20 per cent wasn't met. That strike saw around 50,000 resident doctors walk out, resulting in thousands of cancelled procedures. These are not Dickensian workers demanding hot meals and clean conditions. These are qualified professionals, whose average salary is between £47-55,000 per year. But the point isn't just about pay. It's about power. And they know they have it. And it's not just the doctors. Nurses are threatening a winter strike. Civil servants have walked out in the last year. Train drivers, sixth-form teachers, university staff – all have joined the chorus of disruption. Britain is being quietly but systematically brought to its knees by the same forces we thought had been vanquished a generation ago. And what has the Government done? Capitulated. Time and again. Ministers shuffle to the negotiating table like supplicants, pen in hand, ready to sign the next cheque. Each time, they hope the gesture will end the militancy. It never does. Appeasement, as history teaches us, only whets the appetite. Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, has learnt the hard way: this isn't a rational negotiation – it's a hostage situation. And the Government is tied to the chair. The truth is that Labour is not merely negotiating with the unions – they are the unions. Or rather, the unions are them. Almost every Cabinet Minister owes their ascent to union patronage. The party machine is powered by union money, union operatives, union ideology. The very people meant to hold the line against disruptive action are, in fact, the authors of it. And the consequences are now being laid bare. Consider the Employment Rights Bill – Labour's legislative love letter to the unions. It promises to repeal the Tory anti-strike laws of 2016 and 2023, lower the thresholds for industrial action, and tilt the field further toward collective bargaining. This is an open invitation for more disruption. Once again, we find ourselves ruled not by Parliament, but by the backroom deal. Beer and sandwiches are back. But this time, they're accompanied by collapsing productivity, eroded business confidence, and the creeping sclerosis of the state. Strike Day has become a national curse. And unless we find the courage once more to challenge the vested interests that now run Britain by proxy, it will become a permanent fixture of our national life – another symbol of decline in a country too frightened to govern itself.
Telegraph
28 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Reeves making bigger mistakes than Truss, says Badenoch
Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves are making 'even bigger mistakes' than Liz Truss and have not learnt the lessons of her mini-budget, Kemi Badenoch has warned. Writing in The Telegraph, the Tory leader accuses the Government of taking Britain's finances 'to the brink' over concerns that it is pushing the country into a 'debt spiral'. Comparing Labour to Ms Truss marks Mrs Badenoch 's first major public criticism of the former Conservative prime minister, whose tax-cutting 2022 mini-budget was followed by a market meltdown. Mrs Badenoch says: 'For all their mocking of Liz Truss, Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have not learnt the lessons of the mini-budget and are making even bigger mistakes. 'They continue to borrow more and more, unable and unwilling to make the spending cuts needed to balance the books.' Her comments are a bid to blunt Labour's continued efforts to pin Britain's current economic woes on the Tory legacy of Ms Truss's premiership. Almost three years on, Ms Reeves and Sir Keir still regularly resort to blaming the mini-budget for unpopular decisions on tax and spending. But the remarks also risk reopening old wounds within the Tories, with some allies of Ms Truss arguing that she had the right vision for a low-tax economy. A source close to Liz Truss told The Telegraph: 'Kemi has not learned the lessons of the Mini Budget, which is that when Conservative MPs fail to back tax cuts, fracking and welfare restraint, they get booted out of office. 'The Bank of England has since admitted that two thirds of the market movement in 2022 was down to their failure properly to regulate pensions. 'Kemi needs to do the work and actually look at what happened in 2022 and hold the Bank of England to account.' The former Tory prime minister has said it was failures by the Bank of England, rather than her tax cuts, which led to the subsequent financial turmoil. Her supporters have also pointed out that borrowing costs on Government bonds have risen to a higher level now than in the aftermath of the mini-budget. In her now infamous mini-budget in September 2022, Ms Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng, the chancellor at the time, announced a series of surprise tax cuts, including the abolition of the top 45p income tax rate. It was not accompanied by a forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility, nor did it contain any spending restraints to balance the books. The budget provoked a calamitous market reaction, with the pound hitting an all-time low against the US dollar, government borrowing costs surging and increased mortgage rates. Ms Truss was swiftly forced to abandon the 45p cut and sack Mr Kwarteng, replacing him with Jeremy Hunt, to try and calm the financial markets. She resigned two weeks later. Since coming to power last year, Labour has also been criticised for its financial decisions. Ms Reeves used June's spending review to set out a £300bn spree over the next five years, to be funded by higher taxes and more debt. She has handed a £190bn increase to public services, paid for by the tax raid on businesses which has been blamed for stalling economic growth. A further £113bn will be ploughed into infrastructure projects after the Chancellor tore up her fiscal rules to allow herself to borrow more for investment. Last month's borrowing figure came in at £20.7bn, the second-highest level on record behind June 2020, when the Treasury was funding furlough payments. As a result, Mrs Badenoch warns that Britain is entering a 'debt spiral'. She says the reversal on £5bn of cuts to sickness benefits has added 'more pressure to the public purse' and has fuelled fears of further growth killing tax rises. The UK now faces higher borrowing costs than once-bankrupt Greece and is spending more on debt interest repayments every year than the entire defence budget. Mrs Badenoch writes: 'Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have taken profligate spending to a different level. The UK economy is teetering on the brink. 'Bond markets are increasingly jittery about the levels of borrowing today with no balancing spending decreases. This is how countries enter a debt spiral. 'But it is not inevitable, it is a choice. A debt crisis would make everyone in the country a lot poorer and ruin people's lives. 'The Prime Minister must not let pride stop him doing what, I sincerely hope, he knows deep down is essential – cutting government spending.' Mrs Badenoch's comments also come against the backdrop of internal disagreement over whether the Tory party should continue to apologise for its time in office. She used her first speech as leader, delivered in December last year, to directly say sorry to voters for the Conservatives' failures on immigration. One of her closest allies, Baroness Maclean of Redditch, told a meeting in June that the party had 'done the apologies' and should now move on to setting out policies. But a few weeks later Alex Burghart, the shadow chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, told activists that the Tories should keep acknowledging their mistakes. Sir Mel Stride, the shadow chancellor, had led internal Tory criticism of the mini-budget, vowing last month that the party would 'never, ever' repeat it. Until now Mrs Badenoch had held her fire, though she did privately tell her shadow cabinet that it would be helpful if Ms Truss made fewer public interventions. Her warning comes after the International Monetary Fund and senior City figures sounded the alarm about Britain's spiralling debt. Ray Dalio, a billionaire US hedge fund investor, warned last week that the UK has entered a 'doom loop' of more borrowing, higher taxes and low growth. Ms Reeves has repeatedly refused to rule out returning with more tax rises in the autumn despite warnings that doing so would further damage the economy. The Chancellor is under growing pressure from Left-wing backbenchers to introduce a wealth tax, which would probably prompt a fresh exodus of entrepreneurs. Starmer and Reeves have not learnt the lessons of the mini-budget By Kemi Badenoch Picture the scene: a new Prime Minister and Chancellor spending billions without also making the necessary savings to offset their splurge and balance the books. The markets react adversely, interest rates spike and the cost of living gets worse with prices soaring. For all their mocking of Liz Truss, Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have not learnt the lessons of the mini-budget and are making even bigger mistakes. They continue to borrow more and more, unable and unwilling to make the spending cuts needed to balance the books. They are egged on by a Left-wing Reform Party, chasing Labour votes with ever more outlandish promises of nationalisation and welfare giveaways. The Conservative Party is now under new leadership, and my abiding principle will be that the country must live within its means. Before you dismiss us as being part of the problem, (after all, the mini-budget happened on our watch), the difference is that in 2022 we recognised what had gone wrong and took action to fix it. Labour aren't doing this. In fact they're making a bad situation even worse. Since the pandemic, Britain has become more and more reliant on debt to pay for public services. We now spend almost twice as much on debt interest than we do on defence. And the deficit is over £70bn. Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have taken profligate spending to a different level. Labour politicians are used to entering office with a surplus built up by cost-cutting Conservatives. Their instincts are simply to spend more, and they were wholly unprepared for the post-Covid economic situation. We saw it when both Starmer and Farage refused to back my call to keep the two-child benefit cap, a policy that saves £3 billion a year. And we saw it again when the Prime Minister watered down his own Welfare Bill. Instead of making savings, it now actually increases welfare spending – adding more pressure to the public purse. Before that debate, I made a straightforward offer: Conservative MPs would give him the numbers in Parliament to get the Bill through, if the Prime Minister committed to cutting welfare costs, getting people into work, and ruling out further tax rises this autumn. He refused. So instead, we watched as the Government stripped its own legislation of any serious reform. The markets were also watching. The UK's borrowing costs are reaching levels not seen for 30 years – higher than even those in Greece. Incredibly, borrowing costs are higher now than after the mini-budget. That means prices rising and the long-running cost of living crisis continuing. The UK economy is teetering on the brink. There are now warnings, in the City and in Westminster, that a fiscal crisis may even be on the horizon. Ray Dalio, the billionaire founder of hedge fund Bridgewater Associates, said this week that Britain had entered a 'doom loop' of rising debts, higher taxes and slower growth. Dalio's warnings came days after the International Monetary Fund said the government must take radical action to avoid a debt spiral. As we all saw in 2022, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister are reliant on the bond markets. Yet those bond markets are increasingly jittery about the levels of borrowing today with no balancing spending decreases. Rachel Reeves's unfunded series of U-turns have only added to the pressure. She is boxed in by her party on one side, and her fiscal rules on the other. Everyone now assumes tax rises are coming in the November Budget and the Government isn't denying it. The OBR is warning that higher tax is not good for growth. They are right. The Institute of Directors say that taxes and dire economic outlook is leading to the worst business confidence since the pandemic. Labour's mismanagement of our economy is having real consequences, and it's working people, savers and business owners who will pay more for declining public services. At the same time, rising welfare and poor incentives are pushing more people out of the workforce, making our problems even harder to fix. This is how countries enter a debt spiral. But it is not inevitable, it is a choice. A debt crisis would make everyone in the country a lot poorer and ruin people's lives. The Prime Minister must not let pride stop him doing what, I sincerely hope, he knows deep down is essential: cutting government spending. He should do so, for all our sakes.
