Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

SWP expulsions and squabbles

So now that we've put that to bed.On a lighter note, Mrs BB in Sandy Row earlier:

427211_10200351510982609_820421017_n.jpg


Funnily enough not one Ballymena person I met tonight (all two of them) had ever heard of RS. But they had heard of Eamonn McCann. Cheap shot I know.
 
butchersapron said:
This is a lie fuck off. I can mention whatever i like - so can the class - how dare you try to impose your parties petty internal rules on the class
Click to expand...
Isn't it just a normal person's rule like? The class dont care about my kids or yours. And frankly the class dont have a fucking right to know about them.
 
You do talk shit sometimes ba. The vanguardist stuff is fine as a stick to beat people but not their kids. Surprised you're pushing this particular button, thought you might be the voice of reason here and not let immediate political point scoring take over. It was wrong, shouldn't have been said. End of. Now let's all move on and have some more useful bunfights.
 
bolshiebhoy said:
You do talk shit sometimes ba. The vanguardist stuff is fine as a stick to beat people but not their kids. Surprised you're pushing this particular button, thought you might be the voice of reason here and not let immediate political point scoring take over. It was wrong, shouldn't have been said. End of. Now let's all move on and have some more useful bunfights.
Click to expand...


spare the cooling rod, spoil the child

-PD Proverb Division
 
The guy uses his kids' names in emails that are sent to every single SWP member, anyone who has registered as a member, whether or not they have paid subs, at a time when everything they do is being leaked. If you're annoyed, I don't think it should be at me - I think you should be having a word with Charlie. The truth is, his kids' names aren't secret, it's not something he's ever hidden (the clue is in the fact that he uses them as the name of his *main email address*), so it didn't seem out of the ordinary. By answering the question about what the email meant, I wasn't targetting anyone, and I can't believe the paranoia in people who think I must've had some motive other than answering a question. life on the fucking far left messes your head up.

As for the stuff I've said about SU, c'mon, I've tried to be light-hearted cos I know Andy isn't popular round here. He's a fun target - me and the other SU people regularly throw eggs at his windows. Well, wouldn't you?

Listen, if people think I should edit out the post, I'll do it. But I kinda baulk at doing it after being called a "scumbag". Only my mother is allowed to call me that.

And I'm only *nearly* as fat as Andy Newman. I'm not him in disguise. Me: https://www.facebook.com/evilplan, embarrassing old SW articles and proof that no one really uses Google+

And anyway, isn't the real issue here that Charlie is still using AOL for his email?
 
Nigel Irritable said:
I see a few pints have been had on this thread tonight.
Click to expand...

A couple of times coming in of a morning has been like seeing the remnants of a party with beer bottles and full ash trays all over.

Did we find out whether the bloke sending the e-mail actually used his kid's e-mail address to respond to? If it's aol it's more likely to be his granddad's address surely.
 
It would be amusing if Frank 'Richards' Furedi had a hand in it. Possibly the only incidence of amusement that man could ever have been linked to, in fact.
 
Doubt it but Heartfield has been around long enough to know the ins and outs. Doesn't he still post on some of the Trot sites and SU?
 
Isn’t it up to the SWP how they organise their internal affairs? If there was a criticism of the political direction of the SWP that might be interesting, but the pointed thing about all of the recent factions is that they never criticise the SWP’s political direction, only claiming that the Central Committee has lost its way, or is unreasonably dominant, and that the point is to get back to the original conception of the International Socialists. To put it bluntly, the debate is about which personalities are in power, not about political principles. John Rees, Lindsay German, Chris Bambery et al have all left the SWP on the grounds that they are no longer in the leadership of the SWP. No doubt that is very hard for them, but of no interest to the working class. The only question worth asking is what, if any, are the political differences between these factions and their parent group.
Click to expand...

which is all good stuff but then he does the cartoon which is all about personalities!
 
oops! One of the oiks from the Urban 75 comp down the road beat me to it with the Refriars cartoon.

Courtesy of James Heartfield. Obviously some RCP'ers do have a sense of humour!
 
The39thStep said:
To be fair Scargill wasn't No Platformed when the Yorkshire NUM paper used to have a page three girl.
Click to expand...

Apparently there was a bit of a row between Cath Elliot (Guardian feminist) and the SWP at the Unison women's conference over this.

For the record, I think it's counterproductive to attempt to "no platform" people for having obnoxious views, with the solitary exception of fascists (where it is a tactical question). But really, the SWP must be completely lacking in self-awareness to put themselves at the forefront of a fight about this right now.
 
butchersapron said:
Whose victory is it to get that printed?

That's from months ago though surely?
Click to expand...

Nope, according to various people on twitter it's their leaflet from today's Unison women's conference. There was a motion in on refusing to give a platform to or share platforms with "rape apologists". The SWP decided to make a big intervention (ie a specific leaflet and arguing against during the debate) against this motion.

Completely insanity, and just handing various liberals and Labour Party shitheads a stick to beat the left with. Those clowns can end up damaging the broader left if they don't wind their necks in.
 
Ok, looks like a retread to me - The subheadlines look great though. Platform. Cambridge.

Never mind the outside left, if that's been published in the last few days it shows someone elses (i.e not the CC) hand on the tiller.
 
Nigel Irritable said:
Apparently there was a bit of a row between Cath Elliot (Guardian feminist) and the SWP at the Unison women's conference over this.

For the record, I think it's counterproductive to attempt to "no platform" people for having obnoxious views, with the solitary exception of fascists (where it is a tactical question). But really, the SWP must be completely lacking in self-awareness to put themselves at the forefront of a fight about this right now.
Click to expand...
Exactly, I tend to agree that no platforming Galloway is not the right thing to do. But to put out a leaflet like that, with that headline, is insane. Unless they are worried it will be them they come for next.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ElizabethofYork
Men’s violence against women and girls is a national emergency
34 35 36 37 38
Replies
1K
Views
44K
The39thStep
The39thStep
Smokeandsteam
Facebook: Australia content ban, SWP removal and related news
2 3 4
Replies
115
Views
8K
NoXion
NoXion
S
Tory songs and bands
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
210
Views
10K
Wilf
Wilf
W
all these “So and so’s time is up” threads.
2 3
Replies
89
Views
4K
wow
W
J
To save the UK economy this is what Sunak and Hunt should be doing
Replies
18
Views
1K
bimble
bimble
Back
Top Bottom