SWP expulsions and squabbles

[SpineyNorman]

I think that is from a film where those two pretended to be women to play in a band, can't remember the name.
So what are you implying?

Tony C(urtis). No need to be defensive, just trying to have a laugh with you.

It's some like it hot by the way.

 

[butchersapron]

I
I didn't say I just appeared here today. I joined this forum 6 years ago, but didn't participate after initially joining.
I've not been involved in politics much, but like to look in occaionally. Just remembered my login password a couple of days ago, and thought I'd see what was going on.

Yep. Welcome back then.

 

[tony.c]

OK thanks. Actually I'd forgotten about this forum, but I have just been re-reading Beating the Fascists and googled to see if there was anything about it, and came to the thread on here, which has taken me about a week to read.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

a likely story

 

[tony.c]

a likely story

Well I'm a slow reader.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Well I'm a slow reader.

Plus it takes a while after each of bignose's "jokes" to gather together the will to keep on reading, to be fair.

 

[articul8]

surprised no-ones commented on this yet:
http://www.socialistunity.com/swp-conference-transcript-disputes-committee-report/

 

[butchersapron]

Comrade Alpha from Bristol was expelled from the party for domestic violence.

 

[DaveCinzano]

surprised no-ones commented on this yet:
http://www.socialistunity.com/swp-conference-transcript-disputes-committee-report/

 

[butchersapron]

In the ‘reporting back’ session of conference we were told that branches and districts should not be told any details of this discussion – “I would urge everyone not to go into the details of any particular contribution in the report back” – apart from saying “there were some criticisms”, with confidentiality as the excuse. However, as you will see, each speaker was careful to respect confidentiality in their contribution, so circulating it is not problematic in that respect.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Bloody hell. I don't even know where to start with that.

 

[butchersapron]

The seven members who were on that panel, who heard that complaint, were Rhetta M from Manchester, Maxine B from Sheffield, Dave S from Glasgow, Pat S and myself from London. (Candy forgot to name the two CC representatives also on the panel, Esme C and Amy L.) We’re all experienced comrades who are active in the party and a number of us have experience of dealing with people who have experience of rape or abuse.

Note: this makes them fine judges of what is rape and whether a rape happened.

 

[articul8]

If only the WRP had thought of the "there were some criticisms" line

 

[butchersapron]

Bloody hell.

Yes - people do really need to read this.

 

[butchersapron]

Now, she was concerned to preserve her anonymity then and the CC had insisted on that, but people may remember if they were at conference in 2011 that information about this appeared on the internet just before our national conference in January 2011, and as a result of this the CC made a statement to conference about it. And we agreed with the views of those who felt that this conference decision hadn’t been handled well, and we noted that the CC had acknowledged this after conference and subsequently had proposed a new protocol, which ensures that any complaints about CC members now, informal or otherwise, will be referred automatically to the chair of the disputes committee.

The jan 2011 statement - what is it? Anyone seen it?

 

[butchersapron]

We also heard from Hannah D, Charlie K and Alex C, who are the CC members who had handled the case informally in 2010.

 

[articul8]

This is the most damning line IMO:

she was asked about past and subsequent sexual relationships, and she was pressured -

If true, then there's absolutely no question that the whole DC report should've been kicked out. There's also this barely concealed tension about the "interests of the party" - as though pro-women credentials had to be balanced against other things by experienced cadres

 

[imposs1904]

surprised no-ones commented on this yet:
http://www.socialistunity.com/swp-conference-transcript-disputes-committee-report/

that was a grim read

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Note: this makes them fine judges of what is rape and whether a rape happened.

Probably better than most randomly selected juries in terms of experience. The real problem with the people on the panel is that (a) they are mostly either on the CC or were on the CC and (b) consequently they all knew the accused very well while none of them knew the complainant. I don't see how anyone can think that's a good idea.

 

[butchersapron]

This is the most damning line IMO:

she was asked about past and subsequent sexual relationships, and she was pressured -

If true, then there's absolutely no question that the whole DC report should've been kicked out. There's also this barely concealed tension about the "interests of the party" - as though pro-women credentials had to be balanced against other things by experienced cadres

Followed by

Could I ask you not to go into the detail of what was discussed, because I don’t think that’s relevant and that is one of the ground rules that we agreed.

 

[Fedayn]

she was asked about past and subsequent sexual relationships, and she was pressured -​

That's utterly damning, be interesting to see if Dave S from Glasgow knows the transcipt of the session is on the www.....

 

[butchersapron]

Probably better than most randomly selected juries in terms of experience. The real problem with the people on the panel is that (a) they are mostly either on the CC or were on the CC and (b) consequently they all knew the accused very well while none of them knew the complainant. I don't see how anyone can see that as remotely fair.

It's odd, an panel with 7 judges , all who know the accused. Even bourgeois law doesn't allow this rubbish.

 

[butchersapron]

It's odd, an panel with 7 judges , all who know the accused. Even bourgeois law doesn't allow this rubbish.

Nor this:

And I think one of the most distressing things for her was that she was expected to respond immediately to the evidence that Comrade Delta was able to bring – she never got to see it in advance. He had her statement for weeks before she appeared in front of the panel. Some of the issues that were raised were things she had blocked out, and it was an incredibly traumatic experience for her.

 

[butchersapron]

Leninist discipline in action.

 

[Fedayn]

Probably better than most randomly selected juries in terms of experience. The real problem with the people on the panel is that (a) they are mostly either on the CC or were on the CC and (b) consequently they all knew the accused very well while none of them knew the complainant. I don't see how anyone can see that as remotely fair.

It is difficult in such circumstances for folk on such a DC not to know the accused, small pond and all that, however that they accept that they all knew 'Delta', some of them having had longstanding working and personal friendships with him but none knew W is frankly remarkable. By any standards of 'natural justice' that's frankly disgraceful.

 

[butchersapron]

Shortly after the hearing Candy referred to, a second woman came forward with an allegation of sexual harassment, and she will speak herself in this session. I think it’s important to say that she’s been moved from her party job following giving that evidence, and that she’s been told her presence at the centre would disrupt the harmony of the office. I think this constitutes punishing her for making a complaint of sexual harassment.

 

[butchersapron]

(Red ‘stop speaking’ light goes on)

 

[articul8]

I wonder if the SWP centre full timer who made a follow up complaint was in a union?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Nor this:

Actually that second bit is sort of in keeping with how the Courts handle things. The accused gets access to all the evidence against him in advance. The complainant is treated as a witness rather than a party and so does not.

The difference is that in a criminal court case there would also be a prosecution, who would have access to large amounts of evidence, including statements made by the accused to the cops, even though the complainant would not. Even the prosecution though doesn't get an account of the evidence an accused is planning to give unless he's opened his mouth in custody. Here there doesn't seem to have been any "prosecution" party though.

 

[butchersapron]

Actually that second bit is sort of in keeping with how the Courts handle things. The accused gets access to all the evidence against him in advance. The complainant is treated as a witness rather than a party and so does not.

(No it ain't. A cul-de-sac for now though)