Talk:Tonypandy riots

Churchill broke a rule that had been established in 1688 and still holds today: that troops are never ever used in internal disputes on the British mainland.

I don't think the claim about troops firing is accurate. It just muddles the issue, which was that he broke existing norms.

--GwydionM 18:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I've reversed some partisan changes made by an unidentified user. The later editing of this version was fine in itself.--GwydionM 20:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Did Churchill send troops to Tonypandy?

Did Churchill actually send troops to Tonypandy at all? The linked page says that

"At one o'clock on the morning of the 8th November, Captain Lindsay fearing the scale of the disorder and the possibility of losing control of the situation telegraphed for army reinforcements, Tidworth barracks replied saying that contingents of cavalry and infantry would arrive at Tonypandy at 9a.m. that morning. When they didn't arrive he telegraphed Winston Churchill, the then Home Secretary....

"Unbeknownst to him however, [b]Churchill on finding out about the unapproved troop movements had already stopped the reinforcements at Swindon[/b], fearing some said a repeat of the incidents of 'Bloody Sunday, when in 1887 at Trafalgar Square troops with fixed bayonets faced rioters. [b]He sent a telegram to Lindsay stating, 'infantry should not be used until all other methods have failed'. Instead of the military he sent 70 mounted and 200 other constables of the Metropolitan Police Force[/b] as reinforcements to the authorities already in the area. Cavalry were also offered, to be sent into the district as a precautionary measure under the control of General MacReady. Lindsay on hearing of the contingent of Metropolitan Police being sent to his aid refused the use of the cavalry saying the police reinforcements should be sufficient, as such [b]the cavalry were halted at Cardiff[/b].

"On Tuesday the 8th November the workmen on strike were paid off by the companies of the Cambrian Combine and proceeded to the Tonypandy Athletic Ground for a mass meeting. The local stipendiary magistrate Lleufer Thomas spoke to the men and read out a message from the Home Secretary who maintained his intent to hold back the soldiers and send only police in to maintain the peace. The tone was conciliatory and was well received by the strikers, promising as it did to arrange meetings with the Board of Trade to resolve the dispute. The miners then formed an orderly procession and proceeded once again to the Glamorgan Colliery, arriving about 4p.m. Within the hour however what was described as 'serious rioting' had once again occurred. Mounted police attempted to disperse the strikers and hand to hand combat between strikers and the police took place lasting over two hours. Finally the police managed to split the strikers into separate groups, some being driven up the valley towards Llwynypia and others down the valley towards Tonypandy. Scores of not hundreds of police and rioters were left injured. It was what happened next that has gone down in history as the Tonypandy Riots. Strikers on being driven to Tonypandy proceeded to smash the shop windows of the town, and also those of a number of private dwellings. Contemporary reports state that of all the shopping district only two shops retained their windows and were not looted by the rioters, one a jewellers which had roller shutters and the other a chemist owned by a former Welsh rugby International. The five constables on duty in Tonypandy at the time, together with dozen reinforcements from the Colliery finally managed to clear the streets. Due to the seriousness of this continued rioting Churchill telegrammed General MacReady stating, 'As the situation appears to have become more serious you should [b]if the Chief Constable or Local Authority desire it move all the cavalry into the district without delay[/b]'. Churchill also spoke to Lindsay and MacReady and agreed to send another contingent of 200 Metropolitan policemen leaving London on Wednesday 9th November at 3a.m. However by the time that 150 police arrived at Tonypandy Square at 11p.m. on the Tuesday 8th November the disturbances were over."

The way I read that the local authorities asked for troops, but Churchill sent policemen instead. Troops were offered conditionally, and were never used. Do we have another, reliable source that reports that troops were sent?

Agemegos 10:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Churchill was responsible for sending troops as well as policemen, even if their exact movements were not always as he wished. See Roy Jenkins's biography of Churchill, for instance. He and others discuss the justification and would hardly have overlooked it if there was any ambiguity about Churchill authorising the use of the army, contrary to existing norms for the British mainland.

GwydionM 08:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Roy jenkins' biography is probably not the best place for a non-partisan exploration of the incidents in question. More significantly, there will be a record of orders and also troop movement records if soldiers were moved to the area, let alone deployed. Is it possible - like the story of troops firing on striking miners during the General Strike of 1926 - that the story is an invention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.7.14 (talk) 12:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it's definitely not an invention. Dozens of books mention it. Jenkins is rather pro-Churchill. GwydionM (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Could just be that lots of books quote each other on this point, Churchill sending in troops to crush the miners was very much an article of faith among labour politicians, which Jenkins was. the article itself is contradictory on this point stating first that he sent in troops, then a few paragraphs later that he stopped troops being deployed and sent in policemen instead, which is supported by the photos of the events in the article so who do you belive, the photos taken at the time or authors writing 50+ years later??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HandSguy (talk • contribs) 18:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sending and deploying are two different things. The troops were garrisoned nearby, but were not deployed. The article states that. There are pictures of the troops at Pontypridd, ready for deployment, such as the West Riding Regiment at Market Square in Potypridd, plus the Somerset Light Infantry at Tonypandy Railway Station. It's just that we don't have electronic versions of them. I suggest The Tonypandy Riots 1910-1911; Gwyn Evans and David Maddox, lots of lovely photos of the troops. FruitMonkey (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Why Llanelli here?

I question the edit of MacAuslan(Talk) here which gives us

Until the summer of 1911, riots known collectively (though less accurately) as Tonypandy riots involving strikes in mines, docks and on the railways continues to occur. This included the deaths of two rioters at Llanelli: "When rioters tried to prevent the movement of a train at Llanelli, troops opened fire and two of the rioters were shot dead".(With citation.)

Llanelli is a long way from Tonypandy, in another county. I oppose (a) the over-intimate linkage of these events (notwithstanding the Churchill connection) and (b) the perceived POV attack on the term 'Tonypandy riots', followed in the next par by the change from 'more official version' to quasi-official version. What's going on here? Can we discuss such crucial unexplained variations before adopting them, please? If not, I intend to revert without delay to the previous text. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Concur. Revert it. FruitMonkey (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I was trying, perhaps without sufficient clarity, to sort out nomenclature of the riots in Wales in 19120/11. Tonypandy was a riot, of course; the linked disturbances are better known as the Rhondda Riots. (Sorry that I seem not to have said so. I meant to...). On a second point, the disputed question of deaths during these riots, it seemed to me worth pointing out that there are fully accredited (e.g. ODNB, the only authoritative source I have to hand) deaths in these disturbances - but they were at Llanelli, not Tonypandy. Maybe Llanelle is too far from Rhondda. 3) I altered to 'quasi-official' in trying to stimulate a response to my concern that I do not know why The New Age, which I can't access, is 'semi-official'. I see I shd have used talk page: sorry. But how better to describe a periodical that wikipedia itself says is 'a British literary magazine...as a publication of the Christian Socialist movement'? It doesn't sound any sort of 'official'. MacAuslan (talk) 05:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right that the New Age is now a dead link. I'll try to replace/improve on that citation soon. But please look again—the previous citation, described as 'more official' is on the website of the Rhondda Cynon Taf council, which would be less than chuffed by your 'quasi-official' rebuke! Agreed, Tonypandy and the Rhondda were certainly not the only places which saw industrial strife in those days. Perhaps you should create a new article about the Llanelli riot(s). Cheers Bjenks (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at Churchill in the OEDB, the wording is

During the summer of 1911, when strikes in the docks spread to the railways, he was seized by a nightmare vision of a starving community held to ransom by industrial anarchists. Overriding the local authorities, he dispatched troops to many parts of the country and gave army commanders discretion to employ them. When rioters tried to prevent the movement of a train at Llanelli, troops opened fire and two of the rioters were shot dead. Together with Tonypandy, these events marked a turning point in Churchill's relations with the Labour Party and the trade unions.

This actually treats Llanelli as a separate event from Tonypandy. I had thought of keeping the dock strikes and the Llanelli incident in as sympathetic or supportive action to the Rhondda colliers' strike but, sorry, the citation does not support that. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't find a citation to replace the now dead (and always rather weak) New Age reference. In fact the OEDB article on prime minister Asquith says

[In 1912]. . .a national coal strike was threatened. Despite Asquith's leading a group of the cabinet in negotiation with the owners and the Miners' Federation, the strike began on 29 February. Asquith countered by passing in a week the Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Bill, an important measure in which Asquith went to considerable lengths to end the strike, but without establishing a national minimum wage.

(my italics) So I've taken out that sentence which, anyway seems to have no direct relevance to the Tonypandy issues. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the attention you're giving this, Bjenks - my own main interest is elsewhere. Originally I stumbled across this, and was surprised to find New Age treated as 'Semi-official'. Is a tourist page on the Rhondda Cynon Taf council truly a certification of authenticity for an academic source? I don't want to seem po-faced or snotty about this, nor to affront any local sensibilities; but it remains a nagging doubt in my mind.
The real question is how to communicate (neutrally) the position re Churchill's guilt or otherwise in deaths in S. Wales 1910-11 - or at least , that is what I was looking for; and found the article, as written, blurred as to geography. I have no investment in my feeble efforts to un-blur it, which I think you rightly saw had not succeeded. Maybe the best descriptor is "disturbances in South Wales 1910-1911"? One of my reasons for entering on this was the fact that I got to the article via a redirect from 'Tonypandy Riots' (plural) from another article. In Winston Churchill which I was using, I find another geographical peculiarity which may explain why I did what I did: "In 1910, a number of coal miners in the Rhondda Valley began what has come to be known as the Tonypandy Riot"
Finally, is 'OEDB' the same as what I call 'ODNB'? There's an article on Dictionary of National Biography, with a redirect from ODNB, but no redirect from OEDB. MacAuslan (talk) 12:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, my mistake: ODNB is the right name. I never previously consulted it because of the registration difficulty for a non-UK resident. Now, I've learned I can access it through my membership of the National Library of Wales :) Cheers Bjenks (talk) 23:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I should have added Thanks, Bjenks, for reminding me to use the Discussion pages before messing around with articles - especially those, to be frank, of which I don't have much knowledge. MacAuslan (talk) 12:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The Rhondda Riots started around the fairly militant Cambrian Combine, which were led by Syndicalist unionists. The first real clashes began outside Tonypandy in the neighbouring villages of Llwynypia (the Scotch mine) and the Ely Pit in Penygraig. All these villages are within the Rhondda. It just so happens that Tonypandy was the location when tempers boiled over and the most violent of the clashes erupted. Llanelli is a red-herring, its not connected with these events as the issue being fought over was very local to the Rhondda. Also the RCT article is not a tourist page, it is a historical archive published and maintained by the RCT library service. Librarians are professional archivists and should be afforded the same respect for their work as museum staff. FruitMonkey (talk) 12:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Librarians are indeed professionally respectable. I mis-identified a page headed "Heritage Trail" under the influence of a lot of sloppy behaviour by English councils, not noticing the 'Library Services'. Thanks, FruitMonkey - and apologies. MacAuslan (talk) 08:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparent error in price per ton

I've raised this somewhere before and still think it needs resolving. An unlikely offered price per ton of "2s1.3d (sic)" is cited on the Rhondda Cynon Taf website and is faithfully reproduced in the WP article. Earlier, the site says "management offered 1s.9.d per ton for workers mining the seam, whereas workers demanded 2s.9.d". This leads me to suggest that the offered price should read 2s 3d. (Full points were never used in abbreviating £ s d, let alone decimals of pence.) The only fractions of pence allowable would have been the halfpenny or farthing, but the tone of the source material suggests that the negotiations were in terms of whole pence per ton. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 01:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC):OK, if there's no objection, I'll just change this (and write a second time to the RCT Library). "2s1.3d" is obviously just a typo. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 05:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, must have been a typo. FruitMonkey (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Churchill controversy—How about a main article?

We seem to be going through a lot of contortions in the treatment of Churchill's role, reputation, grandson, etc, etc, all of which is very interesting, though much detail is quickly amended and lost. There is also insufficient discussion of the changes being made, and not enough specific referencing of the historiography (as distinct from reportage, commentary, interpretation, etc.) Rather than keep trying to refine these issues into one or two paragraphs in this article (and in other articles here and here, I propose that we consider a separate main article, titled Rhondda military deployment, 1910-11. This would enable the various sources to be brought together and more seriously considered. What do others think? Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Good idea! --GwydionM (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking further into this, I think it will be possible to expose much more interesting material than we really want to put into the Tonypandy article. For instance, I have found in the Australian National Library a contemporary Reuters report and a 1954 story Woman M.P. Will Not Sign Memorial Book. These are, of course, Fleet Street reports picked up by other newspapers. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. I've received Randolph Churchill's (ahem) objective documentation of the events in his book on The Young Statesman and will start working on this in a sandbox. Any suggestions and/or better ideas for an article title will be gratefully considered. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest Churchill's role in the Tonypandy Riots - seems neutral. The draft article looks fine. --GwydionM (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Point taken, but we don't have Churchill's role. . . at the Siege of Sidney Street, Gallipoli Campaign, Siege of Tobruk, etc. Perhaps the article section Winston Churchill in politics: 1900–1939#Home Secretary is where our stuff belongs, even if it means splitting that article into two. Better to think it through now rather than later. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 03:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tonypandy riots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040928125251/http://www.south-wales.police.uk:80/fe/master.asp?n1=8&n2=253&n3=484&n4=489 to http://www.south-wales.police.uk/fe/master.asp?n1=8&n2=253&n3=484&n4=489

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

No miners were killed

It is important the article should mention that no miners were shot by the army, despite rumours to the contrary. (81.159.7.175 (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC))

there is nothing in the article that is sourced there are any credible rumours about miners being killed. You would need to reliably source the rumours and the fact that the rumours are wrong. Also it would not belong in the lead. -- GB fan 15:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Richard Burton wrote two articles in November 1974 in which he claimed miners were shot dead by the British army at Tonypandy. His younger brother Graham Jenkins confirmed none of this ever happened. (81.159.7.175 (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC))

My Dad, who was born at Cwmclydach in 1910, often relayed his chagrin towards Churchill for bringing in the troops, but never mentioned any killing. (He would have got from his own dad) that taking on the coppers was regarded as a fair fight (fists and pick handles vs truncheons); but it was not fair play to bring in the threat of firearms and bayonets. In those days, it was OK, even desirable, to have a "scrap", and every pit-family boy at an early age was educated in how to "look after" himself. Bjenks (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Would Burton have known that nobody was killed? (5.81.222.33 (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC))

Burton, who lived only 59 years and died in 1984 was not born then, so any knowledge he had would have been inevitably second-hand.Cloptonson (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tonypandy riots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080820231910/http://webapps.rhondda-cynon-taf.gov.uk/heritagetrail/rhondda/tonypandy/tonypandy.htm to http://webapps.rhondda-cynon-taf.gov.uk/heritagetrail/rhondda/tonypandy/tonypandy.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.rhondda-cynon-taff.gov.uk/stellent/groups/public/documents/hcst/content.hcst?lang=en&textonly=on&dDocName=016833
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718144058/http://webapps.rhondda-cynon-taff.gov.uk/heritagetrail/rhondda/Rhondda%20-%20The%20Story%20of%20Coal.pdf to http://webapps.rhondda-cynon-taff.gov.uk/heritagetrail/rhondda/Rhondda%20-%20The%20Story%20of%20Coal.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Possible use

• [1] - building may warrant an article. KJP1 (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)