SWP expulsions and squabbles

[belboid]

I dont think you can really compare how companies or evenTU's deal with such allegations. For one thing they are pretty much obliged to take matters to law if they become this serious, whereas only politically motivated organisations would really deal with a question of whether a rape actually took place. Not to mention how many of them do have procedures but implement them badly - Owen Oystons still on the board at Blackpool, everyone in ASLEF knew everyone else in the 2004 leadership brawl.

But the SWP do have mechanisms for dealing with such allegations, anyway, and have implemented them in the past. You can see that with the mention of Comrade Alpha. The democratic (ahem) structures within the SWP obviously mean that all members, from top to bottom, face the same rules, which means going before the Disputes Committee. And that committee was obviously elected before charges were raised, so couldnt take into account who might be called before it. So who could change it? Not the Central Committee, obviously, and it shouldn't really be allowed to just nominate it's own replacements. No one outside would consider taking on such a hearing without it also going to law, so what was there option? Less CC and former CC members would help a bit, but only a bit. Any ex-fulltimer would also have known the person involved as well, so......

I don't really like to comment much on the transcript, simply because I dont think it should be up there in that detail. There are people - not Comrade 'Delta' - who want to retain their anonymity for good reasons, and they can be fairly readily indentified from what's in there - to people in the SWP and other lefties in the relevant areas, Newman shouldn't have put it up.


btw - Charlie Kimber isn't related to the banking Kimbers -http://www.thepeerage.com/p49057.htm

 

[butchersapron]

They all do retain their anonymity.

 

[cesare]

Nigel, LP thread pages 127 to 130. I set out about how sexual assault/harassment investigations should be handled to articul8 earlier this afternoon on this thread including incorporating reporting to police.

 

[cesare]

Belboid, harassment's a criminal offence too.

 

[butchersapron]

I dont think you can really compare how companies or evenTU's deal with such allegations. For one thing they are pretty much obliged to take matters to law if they become this serious, whereas only politically motivated organisations would really deal with a question of whether a rape actually took place. Not to mention how many of them do have procedures but implement them badly - Owen Oystons still on the board at Blackpool, everyone in ASLEF knew everyone else in the 2004 leadership brawl.

But the SWP do have mechanisms for dealing with such allegations, anyway, and have implemented them in the past. You can see that with the mention of Comrade Alpha. The democratic (ahem) structures within the SWP obviously mean that all members, from top to bottom, face the same rules, which means going before the Disputes Committee. And that committee was obviously elected before charges were raised, so couldnt take into account who might be called before it. So who could change it? Not the Central Committee, obviously, and it shouldn't really be allowed to just nominate it's own replacements. No one outside would consider taking on such a hearing without it also going to law, so what was there option? Less CC and former CC members would help a bit, but only a bit. Any ex-fulltimer would also have known the person involved as well, so......

I don't really like to comment much on the transcript, simply because I dont think it should be up there in that detail. There are people - not Comrade 'Delta' - who want to retain their anonymity for good reasons, and they can be fairly readily indentified from what's in there - to people in the SWP and other lefties in the relevant areas, Newman shouldn't have put it up.


btw - Charlie Kimber isn't related to the banking Kimbers -http://www.thepeerage.com/p49057.htm

Comrade alpha - not CC related. They can do that shit easy.

Come on belboid, how the hell can any of this being the property of the party help anything at all? This isn't a political faction.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Nigel, LP thread pages 127 to 130. I set out about how sexual assault/harassment investigations should be handled to articul8 earlier this afternoon on this thread including incorporating reporting to police.

Cheers, I'll have a look.

 

[belboid]

They all do retain their anonymity.

I'm sure a lot of members would be able to identify Comrade X quite easily, and many from Birmingham could indentify Comrade W.

Belboid, harassment's a criminal offence too.

yes, I know, but I really dont see how that affects anything I wrote - in the first paragraph particularly. Other orgs have ways of dealing with such accusations, but they are crap too. And they are not attempting to be particularly democratically accountable organisations either.

Comrade alpha - not CC related. They can do that shit easy.

I'm simply pointing out that they do have a system for dealing with such accusations and it has to be the same body for all members.

Come on belboid, how the hell can any of this being the property of the party help anything at all? This isn't a political faction.

so who should it be the property of?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Less CC and former CC members would help a bit, but only a bit. Any ex-fulltimer would also have known the person involved as well, so......

It's worth noting that a disputes committee type structure isn't really designed to deal with allegations of a very serious criminal nature in the first place.

It's also worth noting that most groups which have such a structure have actual rules against people in leadership positions being involved at all, and not just the top leadership either. After all, much of what they are supposed to do is judge disputes between rank and file members and the leadership and I really don't see how they can fulfill that role if they are made up in large part of people who are in the leadership.

 

[butchersapron]

so who should it be the property of?

Don't know - but this, this is horrifying.

 

[butchersapron]

I'm simply pointing out that they do have a system for dealing with such accusations and it has to be the same body for all members.

And it didn't in that case involve someone they all knew. It being the same was the problem.

 

[cesare]

yes, I know, but I really dont see how that affects anything I wrote - in the first paragraph particularly. Other orgs have ways of dealing with such accusations, but they are crap too. And they are not attempting to be particularly democratically accountable organisations either.

Like all things, some are crap and some aren't. The larger the organisation, the more likely it is that they'd have a higher number of allegations and therefore a more systematic way of dealing with it. My original comment was that handling allegations of this sort properly comes down to competence and training.

 

[emanymton]

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

Absolutely appalling, but sadly not surprising.

 

[butchersapron]

Absolutely appalling, but sadly not surprising.

Why not surprising?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

My original comment was that handling allegations of this sort properly comes down to competence and training.

Ok, I've had a look back to the earlier thread. While what you were saying there is sensible in so far as it goes, it still seems to me that training someone in investigation to a decent degree of competence still doesn't really deal with the most fundamental problems small groups face in dealing with these sort of allegations:

1) Is the investigator also going to be the adjudicator? Are people going to be trained for each role?
2) In a small group it is highly likely that the investigation/adjudication body will be made up of people who know one or both parties and, worse still, will be part of ongoing circles of friends with one or both. That's inherently a very difficult problem.
3) Even with training, these people will have very limited powers if any at all to actually carry out an investigation and no apparatus to use. It's one thing to investigate a row where someone was violent or abusive at a drunken house party or where someone crossed a picket line, and quite another to investigate something complex, potentially involving non-witness evidence etc.
4) And in the end, when it comes to very serious issues what difference will their investigation really make? What meaningful sanction can they actually impose if they find that someone has done something awful? You can't be in our little group any more? For that matter, what difference will it make if they "acquit" someone anyway? Would the wrongly accused really be able to continue in the group?

I'm not raising any of this to be a cantankerous bollocks, by the way. I just have a lot of difficulty in seeing how small political groups could possibly be equipped to deal with very serious allegations. I'm also a bit concerned that those who try to do so could walk themselves into a lot of trouble. Encouraging the complainant to go to the cops seems like a better starting point to me.

 

[belboid]

Like all things, some are crap and some aren't. The larger the organisation, the more likely it is that they'd have a higher number of allegations and therefore a more systematic way of dealing with it. My original comment was that handling allegations of this sort properly comes down to competence and training.

Sure, but the SWP do have that - just not one designed for such a high profile member.

On the LP thread you wrote (specifically then about young people, but I'm guessing the general points still hold):

In terms of reporting, my thoughts are that they need to set up some kind of accountability process. Identify (at least) one person per group that has responsibility for investigating complaints (and that complaints should be made to them) and that they are properly trained in how to do so. Then the results of the investigation given to (and this is where it gets trickier) an elected person/s who would make a decision about what course of action to take. Possible courses of action could include (but not limited to) expulsion from the group, details of the decision being circulated amongst the wider activist community, encouraging the target to report to the police with active support, etc

And all that is pretty much what the SWP do. There could be fuller seperation of investigation and hearing, that would help, but otherwise, they do the same thing.

 

[belboid]

After all, much of what they are supposed to do is judge disputes between rank and file members and the leadership

that's not what the SWP's committee does at all, I think you are thinking of what in the SWP is the Central Control Commission

 

[Nigel Irritable]

As an aside in Jack Conrad's little talk he mentions the following claimed numbers (not up to date) for signatories to various factional documents:

DC faction: over 160
DO faction: over 100
Pro leadership doc: over 260.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

that's not what the SWP's committee does at all, I think you are thinking of what in the SWP is the Central Control Commission

So hang on, the SWP has distinct and separate "court systems" for allegations of "political" and "personal" misbehaviour? Are you sure? I thought that the DC was just a renamed Control Commission?

 

[belboid]

So hang on, the SWP has distinct and separate "court systems" for allegations of "political" and "personal" misbehaviour? Are you sure? I thought that the DC was just a renamed Control Commission?

I'm a tad confused, I must admit. But there is no mention of the political expulsions that took place, which implies to me that there must still be different bodies.

 

[emanymton]

that's not what the SWP's committee does at all, I think you are thinking of what in the SWP is the Central Control Commission

I though the disputes committee replaced the central control commission?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I'm a tad confused, I must admit. But there is no mention of the political expulsions that took place, which implies to me that there must still be different bodies.

The SWP Constitution is in one of the bulletins. I'll go check.

 

[cesare]

Thanks Nigel. My reply to articul8 incorporates some of that, at least the structural process and police involvement/supporting the members. Edit: and belboid's just reminded me of what I suggested on the
LP thread.

The investigator should never be the adjudicator. The investigator should be properly trained in how to carry out the investigation. There should ideally be an appeal mechanism for any sanction applied. In small organisations, for the investigation there might be an arrangement with an external person, or opposite number in another organisation. Everything comes down to the quality of the investigation.

It is more difficult when people know each other socially, which is why sometimes they prefer to get another competent person to do the investigation.

The sanctions applied would depend on the type of organisation. If they can't come up with sanctions that bite, then that casts doubt on the effectiveness of the organisation imo.

I really don't think that just because groups have a focus on politics rather than business, that it makes them less potentially effective at dealing with these kinds of complaints/situations. They may lack the skills, but they can source those elsewhere or provide training.

 

[articul8]

So much bureaucratic authority for such a marginal sect

 

[emanymton]

Why not surprising?

Two things I guess.

First given my experiences of the SWP the whole thing does not surprise me much, it is more or less how I would expect them to act.

Secondly I know some of the people from the disputes committee and they should not have been allowed anywhere near any kind of dispute let alone one this serious.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I'm a tad confused, I must admit. But there is no mention of the political expulsions that took place, which implies to me that there must still be different bodies.

I've just read the SWP Constitution and it appears that DC is the old CCC renamed. There's no mention of a Control Commission in the Constitution any more and the section about the DC says that it looks after both issues of dispute between members and into matters of "ordinary party discipline". It also says that the leadership directly appoints (not subjection to election) two of its members.

Quite aside from the kind of issue which arose at this conference, which is way outside what such a body is really designed to deal with, it seems to me to be pretty remarkable to have a body with Central Committee members on it as the body to adjudicate disputes between the CC and rank and file members. I don't see how that can possible inspire confidence in any rank and file member that they'd get a fair hearing if they were in dispute with the CC.

 

[cesare]

Sure, but the SWP do have that - just not one designed for such a high profile member.

On the LP thread you wrote (specifically then about young people, but I'm guessing the general points still hold):

And all that is pretty much what the SWP do. There could be fuller seperation of investigation and hearing, that would help, but otherwise, they do the same thing.

From what I've read in the transcript, I agree that they didn't fully separate investigation and hearing. I'm also not convinced that the experience that they cited is the same thing as being competent/skills. Some of those questions should never have been asked, for example.

There's no reference to police involvement and whilst I understand (but don't agree) why, this really shouldn't have been an obstacle in enabling the complainant to go to the police.

And yes, the decision makers found it too hard to objectively deal with a peer, and there was no recourse for appeal.

 

[Santiagotalk]

All disputes are refered to the disputes committee.

 

[bignose1]

No, I don't belong to anything, except my union. I was in the SWP in the 70's and around the 'squads'.

So was the Tony I referred to....

 

[Nigel Irritable]

All disputes are refered to the disputes committee.

Has anyone every justified the leadership appointing two of its members to a body empowered to adjudicate on disputes between the leadership and other members?

I'm talking here about the "ordinary" business of such a body, not something that seems to me to be massively outside of the range of issues it is designed to deal with at all.

 

[bignose1]

This is an important point. Small left groups are seriously ill equipped to deal with this sort of allegation, lacking experience, strong procedures, neutral parties, investigative powers, an investigative apparatus, and any adequate sanction.

And that's even where they don't start off by having the adjudicating panel made up of people who know one party and not the other.

Thatll never happen