gun/ None of these people were charged with anything at all. The man with the shotgun was not even investigated by the police, although the gun was handed over to them at the time by the pickets.
CONSPIRACIES Obsessed with conspiracies, the court hardly seemed to notice these minor offences. But was there not also an actual conspiracy between employers and the State when one employer could say to Warren: T've been told I can have every available policeman in the area to kéep this iob going"? Was there not some evil conspiracy between violent men when Warren could he told to get off a building site, or else an 'anti-picket squad" of 300 men would arrive from the syndicate to Torcibly remove him and his men? Perhaps we might 'infer from all the circumstances" that it was this same syndicate of lump emplayers which was responsible for the anoymous bomb threats against Warren and his family? And i there not, after all, a permanent conspiracy by lump employers to intimidate men to abstain from lawful work when lumpers are forced to work on building sites in conditions which wolate the laws governing safety regulations? As a result of these conditions, hundreds of building workers die every year through accidents. As it turns out, the lawful work from which the pickets are alleged to have intimidated men to abstain' was, as the defence pointed out, not lawfuiet all! Perhaps there was also a conspiracy between the judge and the Director of Public Prosecutions -a nod and a wink you might even say that such technicalities' as this would not stand in the way of justice?
The danger of the conspiracy laws are clear from the Shrewsbury trial. But there is another issue at stake here.
Should our defence of the Shrewsbury 24 he affected by the fact that three of them were found guilty of using violence? This question will become more important still in the trial of the remaining 18. which may well not hinge around conspiracy at all, and where the prosecution may come up with better evidence.
But we must not remain as blind as the judge and the jury at Shrowsbury. The whole bizarre tale shows very clearly that even if the police and the DPP managed to overlook it, the capitalists and their allies used and even planned violence against trade unionists. They had organised for it. And this is quite apart from the fact that the "legitimate" forces of violence, the police, were also on the other side, Why should workers therefore be expected to renounce molence?
TACTICS The facts brought to light at Shrewsbury show the futility of taking any position against violent picketing. It would be foolish in the extreme to tie our hands in advance to some pacifist morality which -it is perfectly obvious the enemy himself doesn't respect. It is clear that the flying picket at Shrewsbury was not some workers red army' sent to Shrewsbury in an act of war. The pickets went there hoping to peacefully persunde They were met with violence and provocation from the other side, and the prosecution might well be able to show that some violence was committed by the pickets. But the attitude of the working class movement should he the same as the enemy: as far as violence is concerned, it is a matter not of abstract morality, but only if and when to use it We cannot allow the ruling clasa to decide our tactics for us through the courts. There fore, even if a court finds a picket guilty of Using violence, our defence of that picket must be uncondirional The defence of all the Shrewsbury 24 remains a vital task.
DAVE BAILEY