Posts
The Sunday Cyril: Smith's Spodden Syndrome Sickens
Apparently the reason why Nick Brown was being accused of a problematic relationship with asbestos was not the various improvements in the compensation regime by the Labour government that he was party too, but instead that he refused in his remarks in 1983 to allow Sir Cyril Smith, who wants workers to blame themselves for working in the asbestos charnel house that was TBA, to doubly blame themselves if they enjoyed nicotine during their coming up for air breaks.
EHC thinks this is because Nick Brown had some tobacco jobs in his constituency - as 100s of MPs did, indeed every MP did considering tobaccanists - I think it is because he wasn't willing to let Sir Cyril off the hook with these vile tactics. It is self evident that smoking increases risks of many and varied illnesses, including perhaps asbestos cancers, increasing them from astronomically high to even more astronomically high (e.g. the global figure of 1 in 4 as TBA's own doctor suggested in 1982).
It just won't wash EHC. This is desperate, really weak stuff. Is Sir Cyril Smith your Uncle or summat? And did he get his knighthood for services to (a) Rochdale (b) Libdemology or (c) Asbestos Death?
Meanwhile, with Sir Cyril pretending that EU regulations were weaker than UK regulations and would offer a competitive disadvantage to his constituency death trap, I offer the above footnote from a draft of the speech prepared for Cyril by his friends at TBA in 1981. This suggests that far from having safer standards TBA were jeering at the EU idea that one hour in seven at the suggested exposure - and remember there is no such things as safe exposure, one fibre can be enough - that full time exposure was and would continue to be their own practice.
You will of course also remember their plaint to the Inspectorate that they should be allowed to recirculate air within the plant - this from 1957 I think - because the air in the nearby residential streets was more harmful.
Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant. Rochdale owes Cyril so much!
7 comments:
Nick O'Tine Brown was not merely defending the right of workers to smoke during breaks, as you suggest, he was fully behind them being able to smoke while actually on the factory floor.
It seems to me that the people blaming workers themselves for contracting cancer is you and the new Labour Chief Whip - apparently, if people want to smoke at work, even in the most hazardous conditions, then they should be alowed to do so, it's a free choice.
Thankfully, this Labour government saw through that particular piece of self-interest and banned smoking in the workplace - the very practice that Brown was defending.
Your comment that every MP that had a tobacconist in their constituency would have been justified in supporting and promoting the continued use of tobacco is an absolute disgrace.
I have also relayed your view that raising the issue of deaths by smoking is a diversionary tactic to a colleague of mine whose mother is currently in the latter stages of lung cancer. He too was disgusted at your attitude.
The compensatory fund that Brown was apparently so in favour of - where they the same ones that he attacked on BBC's Question Time when he was asked if there should be a similar scheme for the victims of tobacco and is it the same one that you tell us elsewehere on this page that the Labour candidate for Rochdale is against?
Whatever EHC may say re tobacco and Nick Brown - Cyril Smith was wrong on asbestos and Nick Brown was right - two wrongs do not make a right except when you are a TBA Lib Dem and have a god given right to avoid responsibility for everything.
But what about Cyril Smith and Nick Brown on tobacco?
Cyril Smith was trying to blame workers doubly for the disease he knew they were likely to suffer.
Nick Brown rightly wanted them protected from the greater risk i.e. asbestos fibres from which they were not properly protected.
See other post today for the TBA gung ho attitude to the 1 hour on 7 hours off guidance from the EU - even though they were claiming the EU rules were softer than the UK rules.
EHC and Hennigan and Co have already tried the coal comparator. Now they are trying to excuse the murderous asbestos by blaming workers who smoked even more than workers in general for being so stupid as to work there.
I repeat yet again that if you read Nick Brown's comment, as well as many subsequent ones, it is obvious that he is pleading for thr absolute right of people to be able to smoke whenever and wherever they want. Of that there is no doubt.
I contend that this is beacuse he had a tobacco firm as a major employer of his constituents.
That's conjecture, but it isn't half basked up by the fact that, as Tory Boy helpfully points out, he changed his tune after the Wills plant in Wallsend closed down.
Lord, make me righteoos (but not yet).
Somebody has posted the entire Nick Brown speech on the Rochdaleonline site, as you have on yours.
So far, one reply. If I've got this right it comes from somebody who is supportive of Smith's stance of defending jobs but is not a Lib Dem supporter.
"Nothing in that speech I would disagree with, apart from the comments about smoking.
Equally nothing to call for the outright banning of asbestos in all circumstances."
So somebody else has worked out that Nick Brown certainly was not calling for the complete ban on asbestos that you claim he was. But he was defending the right of his constituents to make cancer sticks for everybody, including children.
Earlier this morning I took some of your rabid comments about Smith on asbestos and replaced them with identical wording about Brown on tobacco. I posted them on a similar blog to this in Newcastle. I used your name. In the interests of balance I knew that it is what you would have wanted.
Nah, don't mention it. You're a busy man. I noticed in one of your recent posts that you were off to Rochdale at the weekend to do vital research on behalf of an important media outlet.
Well, Chris. What do Rochdalians think of the new Argos advertising campaign? Or are you sworn to secrecy?
If your really have started impersonating me EHC then there'll be trouble ... As far as I know Argos don't have any assignments paying £20-£30 per hour plus expenses.
But if you know different perhaps you could send me the details.
The call for moves towards a complete ban OWTTE were in the Labour amendment debated in 1981. Smoking gave a small increase in risk of asbestos cancers. Without the original huge risk from TBA's ongoing cover ups and piss poor H&S there would have been nothing to multiply up.
As Tory Boys Never Grow Up has told you very clearly the line you are employing to defend Cyril was the Asbestos Industry's big wriggle of the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s and onwards. Complete bull.
Post a Comment