ON the face of it there is a strong argument for pardoning some of those convicted of offences during the 1984 and 1985 miners strike.
There is broad agreement among historians of this bitter dispute that the Government, police and the courts colluded to a degree in the face of the bitter industrial dispute. Ministers pressed chief constables across the country to adopt a “more vigorous interpretation of their duties” and, as Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher backed moves to speed up the prosecution of miners arrested. Dubious bail ‘deals’ were offered if ringleaders accepted bans on picketing.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission has concluded there is evidence the police in South Yorkshire assaulted miners, committed perjury and perverted the course of justice. In Scotland around 500 miners were arrested, mostly at Bilston Glen near Loanhead, some charged over minor scuffles and pushing on picket lines. Most had no previous convictions.
The current independent review of the strike’s policing in Scotland could be an opportune moment to offer pardons in such cases.
It has been argued that a precedent has been set by offering to ‘pardon’ gay men convicted of offences related to homosexuality. But the equivalence is false. These pardons are symbolic in nature. Those affected have to seek to have their conviction disregarded if they wish it to be truly expunged. And the laws under which homosexual relations were punished are now deemed to be in themselves wrong and discriminatory. This does not apply to those convicted during the miners’ strike, some of whom were guilty of serious criminal behaviour.
Undoubtedly there were miscarriages of justice, with often far reaching results - marriages were wrecked phones tapped, decent citizens criminalised, homes were lost. There is a case for convictions to be reviewed, but should this happen there should be no blanket pardons. Individual cases should be considered on their merits.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here