Talk:Battle of Orgreave
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
How neutral is this entry?
"the only option open to the police (short of grinning and bearing it) was further charges"
The only option? This is but one of many examples of semantic hedging to be found throughout the text. Interestingly, it has very specific details regarding the events prior to the "battle real", clearly portraying the miners as agressors, but becomes decidedly hazy and vague as the police go on the offensive (apart from concrete excuses like the one above). Despite the later paragraphs, based on incontrovertible fact - it seems to me that this is a rather slanted article, favouring the police side of events.
09:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Mark
Naturally i agree, i remember that day and it doesnt seem like the one documented. I remember the first charge and lots of me mates being clubbed around the heads with truncheons. The problem with wikipedia is you cant report an eye witness account if you were there!!But if you workrd for the BBC you can!Ukbn2 10:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
April 14th - Gaz
My dad was at Orgreave and from what he tells me the picketers were no more aggressive than the police. I'm not too sure on this but didn't the police stop the picketers from getting to the trucks they wanted to stop leaving? You have to remember when reading this that the miners were there trying to stand up for their jobs. The police were getting payed double or triple time and I think evidence has emerged since that some of the batons used by the police had been drilled and filled with concrete. I will never forgive the Tories for what happened at Orgreave.
29/06/07 "The Police also used riot batons and horse-mounted attacks on rock-wielding (and sometimes unarmed) miners, as shown in press photographs"
While I am not supporting the open batoning of protestors, the one in the picture has a brick in his hand...
Paul
it's a camera, bricks don't have shoulder straps. Rob

