Billy Hayes' Interview with the New Statesman 26 Aug 2011

[hampshireman]

In case anybody's interested, here is the email I sent at the time and the reply I received:

To: Billy Hayes
CC: Dave Ward
Sent: Sat Oct 17 13:06:14 2009
Subject: Newsnight Debacle

Dear Mr Hayes,

I am a postman and am behind the union 100% in the present battle with Royal Mail.

However, having seen your stumbling, wimpish performance on Newsnight, I'm afraid that I have great concerns for the welfare of my colleagues and myself with you at the helm of this dispute.

Now, to make matters worse, I see that, not satisfied with simply being an embarrassment to your members you have now decided to also make yourself a laughing-stock by claiming that you are more powerful than Scargill was in the 80's.

If you cast yourself in the 'Scargill' role then I assume that Mandelson must be playing the part of Mrs Thatcher, since the major shareholder in Royal Mail is The Government and, in this instance at least, The Government equals Mandelson. I would remind you that one major difference between the two disputes is that the NUM were not giving the Conservatives millions of pounds which they were then free to use to fight against the very individuals whose union dues made up those millions.

I understand your reluctance to explain on Newsnight why you are happy to continue to help fund New Labour when 98% of your members voted for disaffiliation as, I am sure, on a personal level at least, the withdrawal of support would probably have a negative effect on any mutual backscratching you enjoy at the moment but i wonder whether you would care to explain to a humble union member, such as myself?

I suspect that your days as General Secretary may be numbered, as you can only insult the intelligence of your members for so long and get away with it, but in the meantime, may I respectfully suggest that for any future live TV broadcasts, the union is represented by someone who is more media-savvy and capable of thinking on their feet, rather than only sticking to the preprepared agenda they go in with. You were lucky that Gavin Esler decided (presumably because of time restraints) to let you off the hook, and probably even more lucky that it wasn't Mr Paxman doing the interviewing.

To reiterate, sir, your bumbling performance was an embarrassment to yourself, your union and your members.

Yours Sincerely,

XXXXXXXXXXXX

Scotland No2


Dear XXXXXX
Thank you for your email I have no intention of falling into a trap question set by a hostile journalist.I am gald you saw the interview,all the texts I received on the night were positive.
It appears that in the first instance you have not read the interview, in The Times simply relying on T.V. reports of the same.Secondaly I took precaution of recording the interview myself to guard against abuse of my comments,from the right wing media.At no time did I make that comment buy The Times today you will note the headline has no quotation markes.
I trust this answers your points.
Thank you for taking the time to email me.
Yours Sincerely
Billy Hayes
CWU GS

I will not highlight all the mistakes in Bily Hayes reply. Does he have no command of the English language? Or does his secretary/PR not check him first?

[stokes11eg]

They are obviously pre-prepared answers to questions given in advance and I would suggest they aren't Bills answers but one of his minions. You only have to see him on TV in an unscripted scenario to get the true measure of the man.

Youy are right there!

[Night Tonic]

They do say you get what you deserve, or can afford.

[dvbuk55]

They do say you get what you deserve, or can afford.

So true - mind I wouldn't exactly say it was peanuts but...............

[ElvisGaddafi]

I will not highlight all the mistakes in Bily Hayes reply. Does he have no command of the English language? Or does his secretary/PR not check him first?

It's not about the mistakes mate (although you're right), it's the fact that he totally ignored the points about the Newsnight interview and concentrated on the newspaper thing to which he already had a pre-prepared, and obviously well-used, answer. I had nothing against him before watching this interview but I was amazed how incapable he was at responding to questions to which he did not have a prescripted answer. To be honest, he came across as a bumbling buffoon, and considering what was going on at the time, it was very disappointing.