Connect with us

Published

on

Never mind elections, wars, revolutions, scandals and deaths, this week marks the 40th anniversary of probably the most gripping news story I have ever worked on as a journalist.

Gripping because there were vital economic, political and social issues at stake in this country.

Gripping because two powerful and exceptionally talented political leaders, Margaret Thatcher and Arthur Scargill, faced off.

Gripping because, in their own way, both sides were right.

Gripping that everyone in the country was caught up in the 1984-1985 miners’ strike and conflicted about it.

Gripping above all, for me as a journalist at the start of my career, because the strike reshaped this nation for the future.

On 5 March 1984, 6,000 miners walked out in South Yorkshire at collieries in Cortonwood and Bullcliffe Wood. That day the National Coal Board (NCB) announced there would be “accelerated closure” of 20 pits.

More from UK

On 12 March 1984, Arthur Scargill, the president of the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM), called a nationwide strike.

It became the biggest industrial dispute since the general strike in 1926, with 26 million working days lost. It did not come to an official end until a year later, on 3 March 1985.

The NUM and the NCB came into existence after the Second World War. They were part of the consensus, shared by both Labour and the Conservatives, that took much of heavy industry into public ownership.

NUM (National Union of Miners) president Arthur Scargill voices an opinion at a mass rally in Jubilee Gardens, in London, which ended a march through London by miners, during the Miners Strike.
Image:
Arthur Scargill in 1984. Pic: PA

Scargill was a radical left winger who believed a perfect socialist society had never been achieved. Even so, he was right that defeat for the miners would lead to the end of a whole way of life in which the state supported workers and their families, regardless of market forces.

Before the strike he had likened the Thatcher government to “the Nazis” and called for “extra parliamentary action” against “this totally undemocratic government”.

Prime minister Thatcher was right that the deep mine coal industry was uneconomic and subsidised by taxpayers and had been declining in Britain, Europe and North America for decades.

Read more:
Previous strikes and what they achieved
Lessons to be learned from strikes past, present and what they mean for the future
After 200 years, one of England’s last coal mines is closing (2020)

In Britain there were around a quarter of a million coal miners in 1984 compared to a million in 1922. The number of working collieries was down from over 1,000 to 173. Britain was already switching away from coal as the primary source of energy to natural gas and nuclear. Thatcher was subsequently one of the first leaders to recognise the danger of global warming through hydrocarbon emissions but this was not a principle issue at the time of the strike.

The Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher for her trip down a mine shaft at the Wistow colliery in the Selby coalfield. 14-Mar-1980
Image:
Margaret Thatcher visiting Wistow colliery in 1980. Pic: PA

It was a febrile time in British politics. The previous summer, in the wake of military victory in the Falklands conflict, the Conservatives won a massive majority in the general election.

By the summer of 1984, Mrs Thatcher was calling the NUM “the enemy within”. She intended to elaborate on this theme in her party conference speech in Brighton in October, but it was disrupted by the IRA bombing of the Grand Hotel.

Thatcher was committed to confronting trade union power.

She was well aware that a miners’ strike in the early 1970s had effectively destroyed Ted Heath’s Conservative government. During the three-day week in the winter of 1974 there were daily power cuts around the country. Ministers appealed to the public to wash in two inches of shared bath water. Mr Heath lost the 1974 General Election on the question “Who governs Britain?”.

Blood appears to pour down the face of a policeman as his colleagues lead away a picket from outside the NUM HQ in Sheffield today. Miners were picketing a meeting of the union's executive which is due to vote on whether to hold a national ballot on the continuing strike.
Image:
Sheffield in 1984. Pic: PA

In the popular memory the 1984-1985 strike has been sentimentalised almost exclusively in favour of the strikers and their families. (James Graham’s recent TV series Sherwood is an exception).

During the strike the musician Billy Bragg and the filmmaker Ken Loach challenged audiences with the documentary Which Side Are You On?

Popular films since then, such as Billy Elliott, Brassed Off and Pride have centred on the solidarity of the mining communities and the aid they got from other anti-Thatcher movements including Women Against Pit Closures and Lesbians And Gays Support The Miners. The depth of the lingering passions is encapsulated in the Billy Elliot The Musical song Merry Christmas, Maggie Thatcher: “We celebrate today/ ‘Cause it’s one day closer to your death”.

In reality the miners were not united and the country was not united behind them.

Ranks of police face the picketing line outside Orgreave Coking Plant near Rotherham.
Picture by: PA/PA Archive/PA Images
Date taken: 18-Jun-1984
Image:
Police and strikers at Orgreave Coking Plant near Rotherham in June 1984. Pic: PA

Scargill made the mistake of not holding a national ballot to strike. This meant that the Labour Party, then led by Neil Kinnock, a South Wales miner’s son, did not support the strike.

There was widespread public sympathy for the miners, who faced losing their livelihoods. But opinion polls during the strike showed greater, and strengthening, support for the employers over the strikers. Asked in December 1984 what they thought about the methods being used by the NUM and Scargill, 88% disapproved and 5% didn’t know.

There was near-unanimous backing for the strike in South Wales, Scotland, the North East, Yorkshire and Kent, where many of the richest seams were worked out. Other mining areas, especially Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire in the Midlands, did not go out on strike officially.

Communities were divided. Many angry confrontations took place as local strikers, joined by flying pickets, confronted police protecting those who drove or were bussed into work.

Click to subscribe to Politics at Jack and Sam’s wherever you get your podcasts

In Yorkshire, violence between thousands of police and pickets shocked the nation in the so-called “Battle of Orgreave” outside a coking plant. A miner died in a similar confrontation in nearby Maltby. Official statistics record that 51 miners and 72 police were injured at Orgreave.

It was impossible not to get caught in the existential drama.

A Sky News colleague recalls: “I remember my uncle being on strike when I was a kid and I stayed awake in the nights worrying that he wouldn’t be able to buy any dinner and that he’d starve.

“He’s since told me that he had a great time on the buses to London to protest and they had plenty of beer. He had a police officer pal who asked to stand opposite him during the riots so they wouldn’t kick each other too hard.”

Scargill had also miscalculated by calling the strike in the spring when demand for energy was going down. The government had learnt its lesson from previous strikes and ensured stockpiling for at least six months. Scargill liked to say that the visible mounds of coal were like the hair in his combover – piled high around the edges and bald in the middle. He was wrong.

Miners return to work at Betteshanger Colliery after a year on strike.
Picture by: PA/PA Archive/PA Images
Date taken: 11-Mar-1985
Image:
Miners return to work at Betteshanger Colliery after the strike. Pic: PA

Later coal supplies resumed as more desperate miners went back to work, and their overseers in the separate NACODS union did not join the strike.

The government also tightened the law, including a squeeze on welfare payments to families, to make striking more difficult.

A breakaway Union of Democratic Mineworkers was formed. Working miners, encouraged by David Hart, a shadowy Thatcher advisor, went to court to successfully “sequester” the NUM’s assets, which prevented the union from funding the strike.

Meanwhile journalists exposed NUM officials were seeking financial support from the Soviet Union and Libya, although it is denied that any money was ever received.

The NUM was discredited. A return to work by defeated and desperate strikers became inevitable. Union power was decisively broken in de-industrialising Britain.

Arthur Scargill at Dodworth Miners Welfare in Barnsley during the Miner's strike 40th anniversary rally. Picture date: Saturday March 2, 2024.
Read less
Picture by: Danny Lawson/PA Wire/PA Images
Date taken: 02-Mar-2024
Image:
Scargill in Barnsley earlier this month. Pic: PA

Today all Britain’s coal pits are closed, although there is still some open cast mining in the reprivatised industry. Active NUM membership in 2022 was just 82.

To the shame of successive governments there is a legacy of social deprivation in many former mining areas. In a spirit of protest, those left behind there voted strongly for Brexit and then made up much of the “red wall” which switched from Labour to Boris Johnson’s Conservatives in 2019.

The Conservatives were elected twice more immediately after the strike, in 1987 and 1992.

At Westminster an early day motion has been tabled marking this anniversary, paying tribute to the men and women of the strike and demanding an inquiry into its policing. It has attracted the signatures of just 27 MPs, including Jeremy Corbyn and Ian Lavery, who succeeded Scargill as an NUM president.

Scargill is now president of the Socialist Labour Party and the International Miners’ Organisation. Aged 86 he is still making speeches, he supported Brexit and recently demanded solidarity with the Palestinians, according to The Socialist Worker.

For me there could have been no more useful education than reporting on, and seeing how others reported on, the personalities, the events and the issues of the great strike which divided the nation.

Continue Reading

UK

Hannah, 22, died after buying poison online – why her death raises serious questions for NHS

Published

on

By

Hannah, 22, died after buying poison online - why her death raises serious questions for NHS

Pete Aitken says his daughter Hannah would still be alive if she hadn’t been sent to a series of “failing” mental health hospitals, which made her increasingly unwell.

Warning: This article contains references to suicide

Hannah Aitken was 22 when she took her own life two years ago. Her death has left her family in turmoil.

“I think about Hannah every hour of every day, more than once, every hour, every day,” her dad Pete said.

Throughout the family home are photos, candles and purple flowers, Hannah’s favourite colour. Her parents have planted a tree in the garden where her beloved trampoline once stood.

Pete Aitken, whose daughter Hannah died by suicide in 2023
Image:
Pete Aitken, whose daughter Hannah died by suicide in 2023

Hannah had autism and ADHD and struggled with her mental health. In 2017, she was sent to Huntercombe Hospital-Stafford. It was in special measures when she arrived.

Pete says the unit made Hannah worse. “I don’t believe that they gave her any care or treatment there that helped her.”

Over a period of four years, Hannah was sent to six different mental health hospitals. The majority were publicly funded and privately run.

Three were rated by the care regulator, the CQC, either ‘inadequate or ‘requires improvement’. Two of the units were closed down while Hannah was a patient.

“That to me is an indication of how bad the system is, and how bad the care that she received was,” Pete said.

“All they could do was… like prison keep her safe, but not give her any quality of life. They took all that away from her.”

'I don't believe that they gave her any care', Pete says
Image:
‘I don’t believe that they gave her any care’, Pete says

Over the years, Sky News has investigated failings within the mental health system, including the Huntercombe Group, which ran a number of hospitals.

Hannah emailed Sky News in 2023 following one of our reports to share her story.

She wrote: “I will never forget what I was put through… I put up with so much and it’s only now I realised it wasn’t right, for years I blamed myself.”

Hannah never fully recovered from her hospital admissions. In September 2023, she took a fatal dose of poison, which she had bought online.

Her family are now campaigning for a change in the law governing poisons.

Family photos of Hannah Aitken, who died in 2023
Image:
Family photos of Hannah Aitken, who died in 2023

Her dad said: “One gram of this poison is lethal. We found out from Hannah’s inquest she ordered a kilogramme of 99.6% purity.

“There is a legitimate use for it, but we understand that the concentration for that is something like less than 1%.”

Hannah’s death once again raises questions about why the NHS outsources mental health services to failing private providers.

Read more from Laura Bundock:
Warning of six million new cancer cases – with these areas worst hit
Hospital accused of ‘covering up’ concerns about suspended surgeon

An NHS England spokesperson said: “Our thoughts are with Hannah’s family at this incredibly difficult time.

“The NHS has repeatedly made clear that all services must provide safe, high-quality care, irrespective of whether they are NHS or independent sector-led, and we continue to work closely with the CQC to monitor, identify and take appropriate action where it is needed.”

Elli Investments Group, the owners of The Huntercombe Group until 2021, has said they regret that these hospitals, which were independently managed, failed to meet expectations

Anyone feeling emotionally distressed or suicidal can call Samaritans for help on 116 123 or email jo@samaritans.org in the UK. In the US, call the Samaritans branch in your area or 1 (800) 273-TALK

Continue Reading

UK

Prince William plans ‘ruthless approach’ towards Prince Andrew, as lawyer for Jeffrey Epstein’s victims predicts further leaks

Published

on

By

Prince William plans 'ruthless approach' towards Prince Andrew, as lawyer for Jeffrey Epstein's victims predicts further leaks

Prince William is planning to take a “ruthless approach” towards Prince Andrew when he is king, according to reports, as a US lawyer predicts the scandal engulfing the royal “is not going away” and more stories will “leak out”.

The Sunday Times suggests William will ban his uncle from “all aspects of royal life” because of the ongoing risk to the Royal Family‘s reputation after a series of damaging revelations.

It comes amid reports that Andrew tried to get the Metropolitan Police to dig up dirt for a smear campaign against his sexual assault accuser Virginia Giuffre back in 2011.

Gloria Allred, who represents many of the victims of the late convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, believes he will not be “let off the hook”.

“This is not going away. Even though he’s no longer a duke, and Sarah Ferguson is no longer a duchess, it’s not going away,” the US lawyer told Sky News.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Who pushed Andrew to drop his titles?

Andrew relinquished his Duke of York title and remaining honours on Friday evening, after a series of fresh stories linked to the late Ms Giuffre, who was trafficked by Epstein. She died in April, aged 41, with her family saying said she “lost her life to suicide”.

She alleged she was forced to have sex with Andrew when she was 17, allegations he has always denied.

“The fact that Virginia is now deceased – may she rest in peace – doesn’t mean it’s over for Prince Andrew. It’s not over. More will come to leak out,” Ms Allred added.

Ms Giuffre’s posthumous memoirs, which are released on Tuesday, claim Andrew insisted she sign a one-year gag order – to prevent details of her allegations tarnishing the late Queen’s platinum jubilee.

And earlier this week, emails emerged showing that Andrew remained in contact with Epstein, several months after he said he had stopped contact.

The former duke paid to settle a civil sexual assault case with Ms Giuffre in 2022, despite insisting he had never met her.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Windsor’s take on Prince Andrew

Reports of attempted smear campaign

It has now been reported that Andrew passed Ms Giuffre’s date of birth and social security number to his taxpayer-funded bodyguard in 2011, asking him to investigate.

He is said to have emailed the late Queen’s then-deputy press secretary and told him of his request to his protection officer, and also suggested Ms Giuffre had a criminal record, according to the Mail on Sunday.

Sky News has contacted the Met for comment. A spokesperson for the force told the PA news agency: “We are aware of media reporting and are looking into the claims made.”

The prince’s alleged attempt, on which the Met officer is not said to have acted, came in 2011, hours before the publication of the famous photograph of Andrew with his arm around Ms Giuffre in London, which he has claimed was doctored.

The Mail on Sunday said it obtained the email from disclosures held by the US congress.

“It would also seem she has a criminal record in the states,” Andrew said to the former press secretary, according to one email published by the newspaper. “I have given her DoB and social security number for investigation with XXX the on duty PPO.”

Ms Giuffre’s family responded, saying she did not have a criminal record, the newspaper said.

Read more from Sky News:
How Prince Andrew allegations unfolded
Everything we know about titles decision
William and Camilla’s influential roles

In her book, titled Nobody’s Girl: A Memoir Of Surviving Abuse And Fighting For Justice, she wrote, according to The Telegraph: “As devastating as this interview was for Prince Andrew, for my legal team it was like an injection of jet fuel.

“Its contents would not only help us build an ironclad case against the prince but also open the door to potentially subpoenaing his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, and their daughters, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie.”

The Duke of York and the Prince of Wales at the Duchess of Kent's funeral last month. Pic: PA
Image:
The Duke of York and the Prince of Wales at the Duchess of Kent’s funeral last month. Pic: PA

Andrew, who remains a prince and continues to live in the Crown Estate property Royal Lodge, said on Friday that the “continued accusations about me distract from the work of His Majesty and the Royal Family”.

He insisted he was putting his “family and country first” and would stop using “my title or the honours which have been conferred upon me”.

Ms Allred told Sky News she felt Andrew’s statement on Friday, describing the scandal as a “distraction”, was an “insult” to Epstein’s victims.

“What it’s saying [the statement] is it’s continued bad PR for the monarchy,” she said.

“All right, I’m happy about this small consequence that he has to pay… no longer a duke, but look, he’s living a privileged life while many victims are still suffering from the harm that was done by many people involved with Jeffrey Epstein.”

Continue Reading

UK

Prince Andrew insisted on ‘gag order’ to stop allegations spoiling Queen’s Platinum Jubilee, memoir claims

Published

on

By

Prince Andrew insisted on 'gag order' to stop allegations spoiling Queen's Platinum Jubilee, memoir claims

Prince Andrew insisted his accuser, Virginia Giuffre, sign a one-year gag order – to prevent details of her allegations tarnishing the late Queen’s platinum jubilee, her memoirs have claimed.

Andrew relinquished his Duke of York title and remaining honours on Friday evening.

It came after discussions with King Charles, in consultation with the Prince of Wales, both of whom wanted to bring an end to the long-lasting scandal.

But, according to The Telegraph, Ms Giuffre’s book, which is due out on Tuesday, is focusing further attention on the sexual assault allegations and the prince’s friendship with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, which led to the royal’s downfall.

She tells how Andrew’s “disastrous” Newsnight interview with Emily Maitlis was like an “injection of jet fuel” for her legal team, and it raised the possibility of “subpoenaing” his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson, and daughters Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie and drawing them into the legal case.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Prince Andrew’s ’embarrassed’ Royals ‘for years’

The Telegraph also reports Ms Giuffre’s claims that she got “more out of” Andrew than a reported £12m payout and $2m (around £1.4m) donation to her charity because she had “an acknowledgement that I and many other women had been victimised and a tacit pledge to never deny it again”.

The former duke paid to settle a civil sexual assault case with Ms Giuffre in 2022, despite insisting he had never met her.

More on Prince Andrew

Ms Giuffre alleged she was forced to have sex with the prince when she was 17, after being trafficked by Epstein. Andrew continues to vehemently deny her allegations.

Read more:
Andrew giving up title is ‘Victory for Virginia’
Everything we know about Andrew losing titles
Prince Andrew: A timeline of events

Queen Elizabeth II was celebrating her platinum jubilee in 2022 – the first British monarch to reach the milestone – as the civil case against her son was gathering pace.

It was settled nine days after she reached the 70th anniversary of her accession.

According to the Telegraph, Ms Giuffre, who died in April, reveals in her book: “I agreed to a one-year gag order, which seemed important to the prince because it ensured that his mother’s platinum jubilee would not be tarnished any more than it already had been.”

Parades, processions, concerts and street parties were held across the UK in celebration of the Platinum Jubilee. Pic: PA
Image:
Parades, processions, concerts and street parties were held across the UK in celebration of the Platinum Jubilee. Pic: PA

In January 2022, a US judge ruled the civil case against Andrew could go ahead, and the Queen went on to strip him of his honorary military roles, with the prince also giving up his HRH style.

‘Devastating’ interview

His 2019 Newsnight interview, which he hoped would clear his name, backfired when he said he “did not regret” his friendship with convicted paedophile Epstein, who trafficked Ms Giuffre.

Prince Andrew and Virginia Giuffre (then Roberts) in 2001 - a picture the prince claimed had been doctored. Pic: Shutterstock
Image:
Prince Andrew and Virginia Giuffre (then Roberts) in 2001 – a picture the prince claimed had been doctored. Pic: Shutterstock


Andrew also said he had “no recollection” of ever meeting Ms Giuffre and added he could not have had sex with her in March 2001 because he was at Pizza Express with his daughter Beatrice on the day in question.

Ms Giuffre, whose book is called Nobody’s Girl: A Memoir of Surviving Abuse and Fighting for Justice, wrote, according to The Telegraph: “As devastating as this interview was for Prince Andrew, for my legal team it was like an injection of jet fuel.

“Its contents would not only help us build an ironclad case against the prince but also open the door to potentially subpoenaing his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, and their daughters, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie.”

‘Amazed he was stupid enough’

She also told how Andrew had “stonewalled” her legal team for months before settlement discussions began moving very quickly when his deposition was scheduled for March 2022.

Ms Giuffre also wrote she was “amazed” that a member of the royal family would be “stupid enough” to appear in public with the convicted paedophile, after a photo of the pair walking in New York emerged.

Andrew, who remains a prince and continues to live in the Crown Estate property Royal Lodge, said on Friday the “continued accusations about me distract from the work of His Majesty and the royal family”.

He insisted he was putting his “family and country first” and would stop using “my title or the honours which have been conferred upon me”.

Continue Reading

Trending