Former SWP members plan to sabotage Steve Hedley's TUSC campaign

[Citizen66]

Is AG an anarchist?

 

[Geri]

Is AG an anarchist?

He used to be, dunno how he would describe himself now.

 

[Citizen66]

Cheers.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Pretty sure he's not an anarchist now. He'd joined the morning star lot (CPB?) last time I heard.

 

[Citizen66]

He'll still get my vote for having once identified as such.

 

[SpineyNorman]

He'd get mine as well if I was a member but for being a good left wing union organiser and, from my brief interractions with him, a decent bloke. And also for not being SH.

 

[Geri]

Meh.

 

[articul8]

Not going to comment publicly given I work for them (amongst others) but not sure either SH or AG would be the best choices for gen sec

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm not smearing the RMT, I am merely pointing out that sheer demographics mean that in any organisation where there is a large number of men, there will be a substantial subset which are misogynists. The question for unions is how to you deal with that fact, and promoting someone like Headley is not the way to tackle it.

in ANY organisation where there are a large number of men, there will be a SUBSTANTIAL SUBSET which are misogynists? a subset of what? and do you mean exclusively men? on what are you basing this claim, beyond your own imagination? do you think that an organisation of anti-misogynist men would contain a 'substantial subset' of misogynist men? you're proper barking, you are.

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

in ANY organisation where there are a large number of men, there will be a SUBSTANTIAL SUBSET which are misogynists? a subset of what? and do you mean exclusively men? on what are you basing this claim, beyond your own imagination? do you think that an organisation of anti-misogynist men would contain a 'substantial subset' of misogynist men? you're proper barking, you are.

A subset of men, on the basis that women dont hold sufficient power to be an active misogynist.

As above, there are lots of misogynists in the population.

I really didnt think it would be that contraversial to point out that having someone who has a history of bullying behaviour aimed at women, in intimate partnerships and using sexist slurs would be a poor choice for trade union leader or a socialist candidate. But I have a habit of overestimating the left in this regard

 

[barney_pig]

Not going to comment publicly given I work for them (amongst others) but not sure either SH or AG would be the best choices for gen sec

Why would the rmt employ a labourite hack like you?

 

[Pickman's model]

I really didnt think it would be that contraversial to point out that having someone who has a history of bullying behaviour aimed at women, in intimate partnerships and using sexist slurs would be a poor choice for trade union leader or a socialist candidate. But I have a habit of overestimating the left in this regard

pls point out where i said that having someone who has a history of bullying behaviour of any sort would be a good choice for trade union leader or a socialist candidate.

 

[Pickman's model]

Why would the rmt employ a labourite hack like you?

and not just the rmt.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Not going to comment publicly given I work for them (amongst others) but not sure either SH or AG would be the best choices for gen sec

That's probably one of the best endorsements anyone could give them

 

[SpineyNorman]

A subset of men, on the basis that women dont hold sufficient power to be an active misogynist.

Don't they? What about Margaret Thatcher?

You seem to have an incredibly simplistic and binary view of the world.

and this:

I really didnt think it would be that contraversial to point out that having someone who has a history of bullying behaviour aimed at women, in intimate partnerships and using sexist slurs would be a poor choice for trade union leader or a socialist candidate. But I have a habit of overestimating the left in this regard

is just plain out of order. You're either malicious or stupid because I don't think anyone has suggested anything to the contrary. What people are objecting to is the stupid way you seem to view the world, especially your student twittersectionalist understanding of patriarchy/misogyny.

 

[killer b]

A subset of men, on the basis that women dont hold sufficient power to be an active misogynist.

As above, there are lots of misogynists in the population.

I really didnt think it would be that contraversial to point out that having someone who has a history of bullying behaviour aimed at women, in intimate partnerships and using sexist slurs would be a poor choice for trade union leader or a socialist candidate. But I have a habit of overestimating the left in this regard

That isnt what was controversial. You massive bellend.

 

[discokermit]

Why would the rmt employ a labourite hack like you?

lapdances.

 

[JHE]

Bear with me I'll find the links .. (As an aside I know both parties personally).. apparently injuries sustained were mainly self-inflicted .. will dig out sources.

So some part of the battering was not self-inflicted. Who inflicted that part?

 

[killer b]

*voms*

 

[Wilf]

Oh, I hadn't noticed JHE's point juice_terry - given that your source is the man himself (post 93), is that his line?

 

[emanymton]

So some part of the battering was not self-inflicted. Who inflicted that part?

A cupboard door?

 

[emanymton]

Probably because headley was investigated by his union, and also interviewed by the police, who both felt there was not a case for him to answer. Smith was'investigated' by his mates, who then lied about it to the rest of the swp and sought to defame the women who accused him.
I would prefer Alex Gordon to headley as gs of my old union. But not because of this particular case.

A, why can we assume the RMT investigation was any more robust than the SWPs, the accuser is certainly not happy with the process.
B, We have no way of knowing if the police would have taken if further in the Smith case. They certainly would not have done in the second case, and considering how few rape cases ever make it to court it is very likely they would have done nothing over the first case, especially bearing in mind the 2 year delay.

ETA - b is horribly wrote with too many uses of 'case' in different contexts but I am too tied to rewrite it and am going to bed.

 

[barney_pig]

The rmt is not a tiny trot cult, it is a trades union representing 10s of thousands members with internal disciplinary structures which are robust and answerable to legal challenge. Throughout the delta affair,the point was constantly made that the swp was not a suitable organisation to investigate a sexual assault and that they should have supported the complainant to go to the police,as whatever the shortcomings of the way police conduct such investigations it would be better than the internal stitch up of the pals inquiry.

 

[cesare]

The rmt is not a tiny trot cult, it is a trades union representing 10s of thousands members with internal disciplinary structures which are robust and answerable to legal challenge. Throughout the delta affair,the point was constantly made that the swp was not a suitable organisation to investigate a sexual assault and that they should have supported the complainant to go to the police,as whatever the shortcomings of the way police conduct such investigations it would be better than the internal stitch up of the pals inquiry.

The SWP are answerable to legal challenge too. Just because they don't want any truck with "bourgeois justice system" doesn't mean they aren't answerable to it.

 

[barney_pig]

The SWP are answerable to legal challenge too. Just because they don't want any truck with "bourgeois justice system" doesn't mean they aren't answerable to it.

You are correct, perhaps if should say, the RMT does not apply enormous pressure on its members not to seek legal challenge, nor does it illegally hack their computers or destroy evidence.

 

[articul8]

Why would the rmt employ a labourite hack like you?

Hack - because they wouldn't get very far relying on TUSC MPs?

 

[emanymton]

The rmt is not a tiny trot cult, it is a trades union representing 10s of thousands members with internal disciplinary structures which are robust and answerable to legal challenge. Throughout the delta affair,the point was constantly made that the swp was not a suitable organisation to investigate a sexual assault and that they should have supported the complainant to go to the police,as whatever the shortcomings of the way police conduct such investigations it would be better than the internal stitch up of the pals inquiry.

That point was made, but I don't accept it, a complaint was made to the SWP, and I think they had a duty and a responsibility to investigate the complaint, irrespective of any police involvement. There were essentially two questions.

1, Is there enough evidence to convict this person in a court of law.

2, Should this person be allowed to continue as a member of the SWP and it leading body.

The result of one does not necessarily presuppose the result of the other.

That the SWP was not clear on this distinction and muddied the water with that bourgeois courts crap was a large part of what they got wrong. The SWP and the RMT are each the only suitable body to investigate a complaint against one of their members as a member, and decide if they can continue their membership or hold leadership positions within it. Neither is a suitable organisation to conduct a criminal investigation, but these are two different and distinct things.

Which does not of course mean they get it right, Another problem with the SWP investigation was that consciously or not decisions were made not on the basis of what was the right thing, but on the basis of trying to protect the SWP (ironic that in the long run they did far more damage), I think there is a similar thing with the Lib dems and Rennard. I see no reason to suppose individuals within the RMT would be any different.

 

[emanymton]

You are correct, perhaps if should say, the RMT does not apply enormous pressure on its members not to seek legal challenge, nor does it illegally hack their computers or destroy evidence.

Individuals within the RMT may well be capable of doing these things, especially the first one.

 

[andysays]

Probably because headley was investigated by his union, and also interviewed by the police, who both felt there was not a case for him to answer. Smith was'investigated' by his mates, who then lied about it to the rest of the swp and sought to defame the women who accused him.
I would prefer Alex Gordon to headley as gs of my old union. But not because of this particular case.

Can't comment on the investigation by the RMT, but it's pretty clear that Headley certainly followed Smith's example when it came to seeking to defame the woman who had accused him including, if I remember correctly, starting a thread here linking to a blog with various counter accusations/allegations of mental instability.

 

[barney_pig]

That point was made, but I don't accept it, a complaint was made to the SWP, and I think they had a duty and a responsibility to investigate the complaint, irrespective of any police involvement. There were essentially two questions.

1, Is there enough evidence to convict this person in a court of law.

2, Should this person be allowed to continue as a member of the SWP and it leading body.

The result of one does not necessarily presuppose the result of the other.

That the SWP was not clear on this distinction and muddied the water with that bourgeois courts crap was a large part of what they got wrong. The SWP and the RMT are each the only suitable body to investigate a complaint against one of their members as a member, and decide if they can continue their membership or hold leadership positions within it. Neither is a suitable organisation to conduct a criminal investigation, but these are two different and distinct things.

Which does not of course mean they get it right, Another problem with the SWP investigation was that consciously or not decisions were made not on the basis of what was the right thing, but on the basis of trying to protect the SWP (ironic that in the long run they did far more damage), I think there is a similar thing with the Lib dems and Rennard. I see no reason to suppose individuals within the RMT would be any different.

Who is a suitable organisation to conduct a criminal investigation?
The point being that the RMT investigated whether SH had breached its rules as a trades union, and found that he had not, there may be problems with that investigation, but they did not attempt to carry out a criminal investigation as that was not their role.

The police did, and whatever the problems with their actions found insufficient evidence to pursue the case.

The difference with the swp is clear. The swp attempted to be investigator, court, jury and judge and then sought to cover the entire issue up and blacken the names and expel all who took the complainants side.