pmurtdlanod1 Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 Should they have the power to act illegally? who the Strikers?? the police acted perfectly legally and with the consent of government? thats why there is no case to answer and no Inquiry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 no i apply standards that i wish live by in a society that longer has to worry about violent pickets whilst carrying out their lawful employment. the Powerful institutions as you call them should have stronger powers in my opinion I think you know exactly who I asked you about. who the Strikers?? the police acted perfectly legally and with the consent of government? thats why there is no case to answer and no Inquiry. Nonetheless, I'll ask again. Should the powerful institutions involved in Orgreave have the power to act illegally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ukdobby Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 Part of the job of an inquiry is to overcome opposition. You have just argued against ever investigating any crime. I'm not arguing,I'm asking a question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BHRemovals Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 amber rudd realised that as we are coming out of eec this can no longer go to the ECHR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 I'm not arguing,I'm asking a question. In that case, the answer is in exactly the same way as it does in every other investigation that involves uncooperative elements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banjodeano Posted November 2, 2016 Author Share Posted November 2, 2016 who the Strikers?? the police acted perfectly legally and with the consent of government? thats why there is no case to answer and no Inquiry. so please explain why the miners got a £425,000 payout in compensation then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 amber rudd realised that as we are coming out of eec this can no longer go to the ECHR Oh dear. Okay one more time. We're leaving the EU, not the ECHR. We joined the ECHR before the EEC and there's no proposal to leave it on the table. The chances of us following an EU exit with an ECHR exit are negligible. I'm not voting for that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmurtdlanod1 Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 so please explain why the miners got a £425,000 payout in compensation then? a fairly small amount between 39 miners,its normal practise to mitigate losses and costs in big depts, cheaper to pay out of court settlements rather than the huge cost of defending and inquiries, no fault was ever admitted. ---------- Post added 02-11-2016 at 21:51 ---------- I think you know exactly who I asked you about. Nonetheless, I'll ask again. Should the powerful institutions involved in Orgreave have the power to act illegally? no institutions acted illegally:roll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey104 Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 No one cares! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hackey lad Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 I think you know exactly who I asked you about. Nonetheless, I'll ask again. Should the powerful institutions involved in Orgreave have the power to act illegally? are you talking about the NUM ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now