THE BOYCOTTERS
SIR,—Mr. Whitehead, of the NUM, deplores the article (Spectator, October 9) on the Seven Sisters Colliery dispute; nevertheless, your correspondent's strictures, though harsh, were largely merited.
The Dulais valley, due possibly to an over- monolithic National Coal Board, has had a restless sensitive working population faced by an inflexible industrial history since nationalisation. There has been a tendency to insist on the letter of the law and an unwillingness to make concessions, which was particularly noticeable in the dispute referred to above.
In this case, however, there appeared to be an undercurrent of malice which suggested that the dominating motive for the actions of the lodge com- mittee was not the presence of contraband in a safety pit—rightly considered extremely serious—but the character of the official involved.
This man, an under-manager, had lived in the village all his life and had worked since a boy :n the same pit. Is it conceivable that the lodge com- mittee by their actions had the man hounded out of the area simply to maintain the sanctity of the safety regulations? Is it possible that they were able to view the dispute so dispassionately that the per- sonality of the official, who was known to be strict and unpopular, had no influence on their decisions? Mr. Whitehead asks us to sympathise with the miners if their approach to the hazards is not entirely objective, but can we sympathise if the latter stages of the dispute were pursued, not to achieve any re-interpretation of the safety regulations, but simply the removal of one man, his wife and child from a community in which they had lived since birth?
The whole affair has been a sad blemish on the record of the Blaendulais miners who, whilst not always tolerant, have always been honest in their industrial dealings.—Yours faithfully,
GARETH DAVIES
Previous page