"Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Sir Cyril was faced with the possible loss of thousands of jobs. No MP worth their salt would sit back and let the factory just shut down. He worked hard to ensure that the people of Rochdale were protected as much as possible." This is what your current MP said in defence of this sleaze ball former MP our yours. What MP of today looking at the consequences would condone his buddy’s actions. Smith built up a fine reputation playing up his trademark Lancashire accent and the fact his dear old mother cleaned at the Town Hall. He would say “hey up lads” while out in his slippers on Rochdale market and feed off the crap this idea or seed he planted in ‘good old Rochdale Folk’ that he is in it for them. The reality of course he was a sleaze ball all the time, I say this and forgive the reference to good old Cyril but the Parliamentary standards would not put up with MP’s speaking ion behalf of companies where they hold substantial shares. The MP of today, I forget his name as I am fed up with sleazy politicians that I only vote for X factor candidates. Anyway, this M.P defends Smiths ownership of thousands of pounds worth of shares in terms of what a few thousands pounds is worth today with his 2008 specs on. However, lets put our 2008 spectacles on and look at the facts. The facts are in or about the 1970s.

v Smith owned say £1500 shares in Turner Newall v He claims he purchased them to give him the right to attend a Turners AGM. v His Smith Springs in which he was Managing Director had contracts with Turners. v He read, in Parliament, the custodian of our civil liberties, a speech drafted by the Managing Director of Turner Newall. v As a shareholder and MP he was privy to company documents like the minutes of a board meeting suggesting they should cover up the dangers of Asbestos.

Today, we put our 2008 specs on and we see the following.

v Parliamentary standards would require obligations to declare an interests before he spoke in Parliament. v He did not then as now need several thousands pounds worth of shares to attend an AGM but just a ‘quid’ Sorry a pound, like he did I am trying to win the hearts and minds of good old Rochdale folk but alas my mom did not slave on her hands and knees scrubbing floors at t’h tewn hall t’o make mi one of us v What would say £1,500 shares be worth today, I don’t know but my wages in 1980 for a weeks work were £25 quid each week. Could these shares be equivalent to twenty grand today? A modest car was about £600 and house about £8,000 so his shares were quite a lot really and not just about a ticket to an AGM. v The M.P today says his pal did it all for thousands, I mean Thousands not hundreds but wow, thousands of jobs fo’t Rochdale folk. v Well, these thousands were sucking in Asbestos and Smith, the sleaze bag, did an I’m alright Jack and went int market talking wise tot Rochdoll folk wi his slippers on tha knows, so thas wud vote for im kas his one of us real folk tha knows. v Fact is he could walk wi king nor lose tha commun touch! What a load of utter tosh!!! He walked with Kings and abandoned the common that now walk death. I don’t wish ill of this former M.P but I sort of so angry that I am sort of hoping he sucked in a couple of Asbestos fibres at this AGM or could it have been held somewhere else like a fancy venue in London v Thousands are dying of Mesothelioma and I mean a terrible death that has waited god damn thirty years.

Could he walk with crowds and keep his virtue? Well, I don’t think so cause Sir Cyril, you did bugger all defending these poor folk sucking in this crap but on behalf of Turner Brothers, you chose not to talk to wise and you pass this failure off as safeguarding jobs or your chums of today do. With a tedious inevitability why do sleaze ball politicians defend their failures by claiming, “I did it all for you”. Fact is, he would have sacrificed everything in the 1970’s for a little bit more the greedy scumbag. Harsh words from me I know but, these are the harsh realities, that will doubtless expose me to criticisms but, I want nothing, I am not seeking election but caring for someone with Mesothelioma and I will do everything I possibly can to make sure this sleaze ball is exposed a fraud who fooled everyone. But before you condemn me for harsh words on’th old th’hero o’t Rochdale workers then go check tha selves o’t at’th T’infirmary an get tha sen an xray of tha chest. You may find Turners planted a seed that dwells within you and if it does, I shall love and support you too because Smith and his chums are passing this failure of his as being or yesteryear whilst forgetting it takes twenty to 30 years for its to strike.

    Regarding Sir Cyril Smith, Turner and Newall, and the 1981 Debate on Asbestos. Sir Cyril Smith spoke at length on the good safety record of Turner and Newall, The technical problems of production, the need for less regulation, unfair competition from abroad etc. At one point the Speaker had to correct him and explain that the amendment was not about an immediate ban, (therefore no immediate loss of jobs) According to the The New Statesman, The speech Sir Cyril Smith made was almost identical to the speech Turner and Newall drafted for him. He reserved seats in the Public Gallery for Directors of T+N (to hear his speech) and invited them to dine in the House of Commons. T+N knew in the 60s that many people who had no connection with raw asbestos production were dying from asbestos diseases. Dockers were refusing to unload bales of asbestos, builders and insulation engineers were refusing to work with their products. Yet in the 1981 debate, Sir Cyril Smith (with advise from T+N) declared in the House of Commons ”People at large are not at risk and it is necessary to say this time and time again” No wonder fellow MPs cried shame when he spoke in the following 1983 debate. T+N found the perfect champion in Sir Cyril Smith. They could not have a better representative. Sylvia Conway

   I worked at Turners from 1974 to 1981. We were told at that time "that working is the asbestos industry was extremely unlikely to damage your health". Also I would say it is a fair bet that more Rochdalians died through breathing in cotton fibers than asbestos. The lung disease byssinosis, also known as "brown lung" was rife in the Lancashire cotton industry. It was from this background, coupled with higher wages than were paid in the cotton textile industry, that people worked at the Spotland site. The asbestos textile industry was a goldmine for Turner and Newall. What led to the decline of the Spotland site was the wish of consumers, realising the potential dangers, looking for non-asbestos alternatives. Fibres such as glass, Aramids (Kevlar and Nomex),and carbon began to replace asbestos, albeit at a higher price. This was the beginning of the end for the Spotland site. While Turners could themselves process these fibers into yarns and fabrics, the cost of raw fiber was a lot higher than the asbestos, mined from Canada and latterly Zimbabwe, many of which were owned by Turner and Newall. One had the impression in 1981 that Turners wanted to stretch out the use of asbestos textiles as long of possible for reasons of profit. Also local businesses such as Smith Springs, run by Sir Cyril were suppliers to the Spotland site. (Although I believe Smith Springs got no preferential treatment when tendering for company contracts) So there was a lot riding on keeping the site going, making asbestos products for as long as possible. We can argue until the cows come home about the rights and wrongs and who knew what etc. but the fact is people died and are still dying from asbestos related disease. The main culprit in all this I believe to be the government of the day. Of course deep inspections where made regularly of the work place, workers health was checked externally too. But the biggest scandal is that the company was permitted to dump waste in the company grounds. Everyone knew it happend and indeed it was sanctioned by senior management. Bearing in mind the billions the govenment made in tax revenue from this company and the stategic value of their products (many supplied to the ministry of defence e.g. for the brake linings of battle tanks) I believe the government of today has a duty to do the following: (1) Make a compulsary purchase of the site from the present owners. (2) Remove every fiber of asbestos from it. (3) Sell the land back to the private sector. You may think this is crazy, but wait....they did a similar thing with the Northen Rock Bank. If we can introduce emergency legislation to save a bank, then surely they can do similar to save peopleÂ’s lives?

   For the last 10 days or so there has been ongoing research into archived paperwork regarding T&N's (N.B. not necessarily Sir Cyril's) knowledge of the health and cancer risk in asbestos production and product use. This information, including original documents, will be available to the Rochdale Observer this week.

Speaking for SSV, we do not want to be associated with any form of political mud-slinging. It is particularly distasteful given that many seem to forget the New Statesman articles and television news broadcasts have featured: Derek Phillips, who has been diagnosed with mesothelioma, and Leigh Carlisle who has just passed away from this terrible disease. In some of the ongoing debate about the New Statesman and television articles there appears to have been very little compassion or respect for those who have died, or are affected by these cruel terminal cancers.

On a personal note I am saddened by Sir Cyril's comments but please remember he is no longer our MP. Current politicians, of all parties, including Paul Rowen MP have stated the case for asbestos victims, and the concerns of the Spodden Valley, on countless occasions in the past 4 years. Sir Cyril is entitled to his personal opinions even if they maybe, with respect, baseless. I must say that with one important caveat: providing his opinions have in no way influenced recent or current policy and decisions regarding the Spodden valley site and asbestos victims in general. Sir Cyril's outspoken comments have caused distress to those who have first-hand knowledge of fatal asbestos illnesses. Very cruel diseases that no-one signed up for by simply going to work to earn a modest wage for their family.

As I have already publicly stated, I want to ensure the primary source documents and facts are available so that informed debate and decision making can occur that ensures we do not repeat mistakes from history. whoever was, or wasn't, to blame.

The papers that I am currently going through fall into 3 categories:

1. -T&N knowledge of the health and cancer risks, especially low level exposure.

2. -The T&N archived papers relating to Parliamentary matters.

3. -The aftermath of the Television broadcast 'Alice, Fight for Life'

There has been 4 years of very hard work done to raise the issues of asbestos in Rochdale in as responsible, fair and balanced manner as possible. Too much could be at stake for too many people, and future generations in Rochdale for proper, reasoned discussion of complex issues to degenerate into slurs, slanging matches and petty, party political name calling or personal abuse. All current health and safety issues regarding asbestos in general and the Spodden Valley in particular, must NOT be casually dismissed or disregarded.

The former T&N site deserves to be treated with the upmost respect. Too many people have died as a result of the last 100 years asbestos production. The SSV campaign is not some game or clever rouse by NIMBYs and it is certainly not party political. We are supported by wonderful people from all over the world who, sadly, know only too well what damage T&N and asbestos have done.

History must not repeat itself. People should not be put before profit.

Jason Addy

   Cyril is plain wrong when he insists he was saving 2500 TBA jobs in the 1980's.

If he had taken a proper walk round the factory, as I did as an engineer, then he would have seen that T&N produced many products that didn't contain asbestos. They were pioneers in carbon and glass fibre, PTFE, plastics, balistics and rubberised materials. The sad thing for manufacturing jobs in Rochdale was the pig-headed attitude of a few very senior directors who loved asbestos. These seem to be the ones who wrote Cyril's speeches for him.

Througout the 1980's T&N sold off many of its businesses. Good manufacturing jobs making state-of-the-art modern material were lost to Rochdale. These factories still exist in many Western European countries paying very good wages.

A huge opportunity was lost for Rochdale. No amount of new 'service sector' jobs (whatever these are) in that muddy field called Kingsway will make up for a local economy that once actually made things but was sold down the river by short-sighted management decsions backed up by the then MP.

None of what Rochdale has lost needed to be at the expense of workers gambling with their health. To suggest TBA asbestos workers knew the risks and could have left anytime is not the sort of cruel response I ever imagined Sir Cyril Smith would utter.

To say that the public were not at risk from asbestos is unforgivable. I have lost a couple of my old engineering gaffers to asbestos. They didn't work at TBA but sometimes came into contact with insulation on pipework and boilers on jobs in factories all over the country. To see good men die like they did and to read that its their own fault is unexcusable. It is a horrible way to go and I don't wish it on anyone.

As paron of Sprinhill hospice, Sir Cyril should spend an afternoon with some poor old soul that has got the cancer from asbestos.

I am very sorry to say I have lost all respect for this man.

   I first read this story, mouth open, in utter disbelief.

As someone who hold very frank views about the mess Rochdale is currently in, not helped by incompetant local agencies and officer-led sheep for councillors (Liberal AND Labour) I am someone who has said many times to my colleagues at Rochdale Council that what we need today are more people like Cyril Smith.

I have always regarded Sir Cyril as a man of the people, batting for Rochdale and not himself or any party.

After reading this and the M Channel clip on this site, then articles on the web then I must say my whole view of a man my family trusted so much is now shattered. I am glad my nan is no longer around, she would be heartbroken.

A major peoblem with Rochdale today is that it is dominated by spivs and profiteers who get weak politicians to rubberstamp their projects. That is why we are in such a mess with so-called regeneration in Rochdale. A billion pounds worth of nonsense earmarked that is doomed to failure because it has not been open to proper consultation and scrutiny. We are a very cynical generation today, brought about by political sleeze and ineptitude.

I always though Sir Cyril was a cut above that. A beacon of straight talking and common sense.

Carrying on duties as an MP does not include having speeches on deadly materials written for you by those who profited from them so much.

Cyril's comments on those who worked and died there are heartless.

I'm sorry to say that a true man of the people need not buy shares in a company he gives speeches for in Parliament.

   Incredible. Cyril Smith was a disgrace in the early 80s taking his line from the company. How could he think that using speeches they wrote with a few tweaks was OK? When he says no MPs from other parties criticised his position he is talking nonsense. He was boo-ed and shouts of "shame" were heard in parliament and even recorded in Hansard, the official record. Although he was loved as a larger than life character in Rochdale he helped make Rochdale a laughing stock and politically on the back foot most of the time.

When he suggests that "most" of the 2,500 workers did not get poorly he is doing two things. First, confusing getting a few aches and pains or a runny nose (poorly) with dying an excruciating cancer death. Second, suggesting that if "most" of 2500 which is 1251 did not get poorly then everything was OK.

An MP doing their job - with information since the 1930s of the terrible dangers of asbestos - would have tried to get the plant closed and attract other clean jobs for the town. Not Cyril, no. He said exactly what Turner etc wanted him to say and he hardly helped in claims for proper compensation when things went wrong.

Paul Rowen is failing Rochdale too. While he will big up things such as the Yorkshire TV documentary that Cyril condemned he will not express a proper level of criticism - any criticism - for Cyril. The man who fought for continuing cancer for Rochdale.

Good to see the Rochdale Observer covering this matter. This is far from being the only thing about Mr Smith's history that should be given proper exposure. Rochdale is not a "liberal" town if liberal means letting these shenanigans continue and actually cheerleading in Parliament for the poisoners of Turner and Newall.

   THIS IS SHOCKING !!!!!

how can this man say that there is no link to asbestos from turners you just need to look at the statistics and it proves him wrong

my granddad died of asbestos he received no competition and had to pay 450 pound a week for his own care out of his pocket. while the government and rochdale council . tried to push him into selling his house. He never worked from turner he lived down the road from it and also his brother as got asbestos in his lungs and he as received no compensation and he never worked at turners 2 BROTHER IN 1 FAMILY GET IS WHO NEVER WORKED AT TURNERS AND THEY SAY THERE IS NO LINK !!! .

   The claims recently made about Sir Cyril are shocking and deeply disturbing. To a lot of older people in Rochdale, Sir Cyril is a well-loved character. If the revelations made by the New Statesman are true, then many will feel betrayed. Especially as countless people in Rochdale have suffered, or will be harmed by the poisonous legacy of T&N and asbestos.

It is important that all the facts are investigated without rumour, innuendo or malice. The past actions of Sir Cyril and T&N must be seen in the context of the times they occurred. As Sir Cyril has now frankly acknowledged he knew that T&N workers were dying in the 1980s but hundreds, back then, were not showing signs of illness. People worked hard and some earned good money at Turner Brothers Asbestos. Today, it is devastating to know that decades later a significant number are now paying the ultimate price- with their lives. Not a day goes by when many in Rochdale pray for the remaining good health of former T&N workers and local residents. Asbestos disease- especially cancer is an exceedingly cruel lottery.

The cover-up referred to in this week's News Statesman and that previously revealed by the painstaking academic research of Dr Tweedale, regarded T&N's knowledge of asbestos cancer. The 1982 television documentary “Alice Fight for Life” investigated asbestos CANCER not asbestosis. Many workers knew there had been some asbestosis risk by working at T&N- however the risk of cancer from the deadly product was a scandal kept secret for decades.

In his response to Channel M and the Rochdale Observer it appears that Sir Cyril may have mixed up certain dates and speeches. In order to be completely fair before commenting further, I need to make a thorough study of the archived documents that SSV hold or have access to. Rochdale Observer readers have my assurance that these documents will be made available for public scrutiny.

Of immediate importance is the planning application for hundreds of homes and children's nursery that is still extant for the former T&N site. It is important that matters relating to the New Statesman investigation are thoroughly examined to ensure that there can be no possible claims of malfeasance, bias or predetermination in favour of the developers' planning application for the former T&N site in the Spodden Valley.

It is true that Sir Cyril and his brother Norman Smith have never supported the SSV campaign, such a personal decision is entirely their prerogative and must be respected. It was, however, a sad irony that the New Statesman article featured Derek Phillips, a Rochdale man diagnosed in 2007 with the terminal asbestos cancer mesothelioma. Two years before, in the letters page of the Rochdale Observer, Norman Smith had attacked Derek's son, Dave Phillips, by labeling him a scaremonger. Sadly, the insult of “scaremongerer” was also used by Cyril Smith against other MPs in his Parliamentary speech on asbestos in 1983.

I must take this opportunity to stress that Save Spodden Valley remains a strictly non-party political campaign. SSV has been supported by prominent current politicians of ALL parties at local, national and EU level. Asbestos cancer does not discriminate based on any party allegiance.

Whilst SSV gratefully acknowledge the support of local Conservative and Labour party councillors, MPs and MEPs, any revelations about Sir Cyril must not tarnish the continued hard work of many prominent members of the Liberal Democrat party. Cllrs Wera and William Hobhouse have been tireless in their commitment to health & safety on the TBA Working Party. Leader of the Council Cllr Alan Taylor and former Township Chairman Cllr Elwyn Watkins have defended the right for SSV to raise important issues at Rochdale Council meetings. The newest Spotland ward Councillor, Greg Couzens has also been fearless in his support for SSV.

Finally, special mention must be made our MP Paul Rowen. He has supported local people and the SSV campaign from day one. At that time Paul was Leader of Rochdale Council. A year later, as our new MP, he made an historic Maiden Speech- the first in the House to remember all those who have suffered from asbestos related disease. Following on as Rochdale's MP from Lorna Fitzsimons, Paul has continuously spoken for asbestos victims in Westminster debates and with MPs of all parties on the Parliamentary Asbestos sub-committee.

Asbestos in 2008 is not, and should never be an excuse for petty party political mudslinging.

Jason Addy