SWP expulsions and squabbles

[bolshiebhoy]

I'm not saying that; you are saying that I'm saying that, which is a different thing



She might well believe he's innocent of rape and still have personal reasons for not wanting to remain his partner. I don't agree we have no business discussing these in a hypothetical way. There are two hypothetical reasons which spring immediately to my mind:

1. She feels she has been personally betrayed by his sexual activities. This would be entirely understandable for those of us subject to creeping bourgeois morality, but to a member of the SWP CC, guardians of the highest revolutionary morality, this is clearly impossible.
2. She thinks that by his exploiting his position of power within the Party (and arguably his multiple positions of power if we take into account his age and gender, which I don't think can be as easily dismissed as you have attempted to do), to conduct a clandestine affair which he has then attempted to cover up, and when that became impossible to maintain, to minimise the significance and seriousness of, he has proved himself to be entirely lacking in both personal and political judgement, as well as guilty of a remarkable level of arrogance in assuming that, providing he can persuade his mates and political cronies to rally round, he is entitled to simply ride the whole thing out as if it's a matter of no importance. Except if she thinks that, I don't quite understand why she's happy for him to remain on the CC, unless they're all such monsters that one more or less really doesn't matter...

Can't believe you think you have to make them



You can draw what conclusions you like from my tone, but my "close observance" of CC happenings and indeed this whole shit storm is no more than reading what's in the public domain.

As I'm not now, nor have I ever been, an SWP member, it would, as you've pointed out yourself, be inappropriate for me to describe myself as a platform supporter, but I think you can safely conclude that I'm definitely not supportive of the CC faction...

(edited to clarify quotes)

sorry you're clearly not a member, you do know he's not on the cc right despite what you say in 2 above? I must admit you lost me on 'clandestine affair' and 'lacking in personal and political judgement'. For the record I don't think socialists should give a fiddler's about other peoples affairs, clandestine or not. And that goes for our leaders or even Paddy Pantsdown. The only time other people's sex lives matter is if they're abusive or politically hypocritical and even then the sexual partner of the sinner' deserves as much privacy as can be mustered. You're free of course to speculate all you like about why two people would break up but I'm still not convinced that speculation belongs in a public political debate. I have a lot more respect for emanymton who can differentiate between someone's political position on something and their personal distress. Again this stuff should be basic for lefties...

Ironically enough this ISO article (http://socialistworker.org/2011/06/14/real-scandal-is-the-media) on the Weinergate non-story makes most of the points I just have about nonsense re 'personal judgement' being used to bring down (in this case quite objectionable) political leaders. And yes the crucial difference is of course the claims about delta and abuse. But none of that excuse applies to discussing his partner's sex life.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

There was no ambiguity at all about the fact that the NC position was that the UK SWP handled the rape case 'wrongly'. The only sense in which you might term the resulting resolution a compromise, is that it also contained the view that no public statement, internet statement, press release etc would be made by the party on the subject. This was mainly so as not to be seen as taking sides in the UK SWP faction fight, although speakers in favour of that particular point also were concerned not to assist the right wing media. This answers bolshiebhoy's 'honest question' (you mean, sometimes you ask disingenuous ones?): don't get why they would keep it quiet.

Honest as in not trynig to score a point, just looking for info despite our previous fractious exchanges So yes what you describe makes perfect sense.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

The only time other people's sex lives matter is if they're abusive

But this is the point. You are just dismissing all affairs as a private matter, when many affairs do involve emotional abuse and involve behaviour that shouldn't just be accepted or swept under the carpet as it can often be a form of domestic abuse, although obviously I agree that people shouldn't talk about their partner's sex life which is neither here nor there.

And there is the issue with a 48 year old political leader having a relationship with 17 year old recruit. There is more likelihood of there being abusive behaviour based on both the age difference and the power relations in that organisation. I have never met a 17 year old who was emotionally fully mature, in the vast majority of cases you are not an adult in a meaningful emotional sense. I can accept that you might have a 22 year old who is as immature as a 17 year old, but age differences mean more and more the younger someone is, so at 17 even someone a few years older than them can have issues. But when it becomes someone who is 48 and 17 most people would have concerns, that doesn't make them all bourgeois moralists. The reason Pat Stack had concerns I imagine was for a variety of reasons, including the age difference, status/leadership in the SWP of Comrade Delta and the fact that there was alleged abuse.

This is bad enough in and of itself but to think it's ok to have seven mates judging an allegation of rape becomes a total madness.

 

[andysays]

I must admit you lost me on 'clandestine affair' and 'lacking in personal and political judgement'

Given your performance on this thread so far, I can't say that surprises me in the slightest

The only time other people's sex lives matter is if they're abusive or politically hypocritical

I agree, but are you seriously still trying to argue that Martin Smith's sex life isn't abusive or politically hypocritical? Utterly disengenuous; utterly shameless...

I have a lot more respect for emanymton who can differentiate between someone's political position on something and their personal distress

I'm not here seeking your respect, in fact I'd be doubting myself if I felt I had accidently gained it. I too can differentiate between someone's political position on something and their personal distress, but I can also recognise who is responsible for causing MS's now-ex-partner distress, so don't accept your crude attempt to suggest that its me who might be causing it, even in the unlikely event she reads what I've posted here.

Again this stuff should be basic for lefties...

It may surprise you to learn this, but I certainly think of myself as a leftie. If this whole squalid affair in general, and your performance on this thread in particular, have reminded me of anything, it's that not all of us who declare themselves to be lefties share the same basic principles, so what's basic for lefties is obviously not as clear cut as you'd like to think.

But none of that excuse applies to discussing his partner's sex life.

I'm not interested in discussing his partner's sex life (or indeed his partners' sex lives, which ever of them we might hypothetically be referring to), and again it's utterly disengenuous and utterly shameless for you to attempt to smear me with that, but keep right on digging yourself into the hole you're in if you're not able to do any better...

 

[Pickman's model]

Given your performance on this thread so far, I can't say that surprises me in the slightest



I agree, but are you seriously still trying to argue that Martin Smith's sex life isn't abusive or politically hypocritical? Utterly disengenuous; utterly shameless...



I'm not here seeking your respect, in fact I'd be doubting myself if I felt I had accidently gained it. I too can differentiate between someone's political position on something and their personal distress, but I can also recognise who is responsible for causing MS's now-ex-partner distress, so don't accept your crude attempt to suggest that its me who might be causing it, even in the unlikely event she reads what I've posted here.



It may surprise you to learn this, but I certainly think of myself as a leftie. If this whole squalid affair in general, and your performance on this thread in particular, have reminded me of anything, it's that not all of us who declare themselves to be lefties share the same basic principles, so what's basic for lefties is obviously not as clear cut as you'd like to think.




I'm not interested in discussing his partner's sex life (or indeed his partners' sex lives, which ever of them we might hypothetically be referring to), and again it's utterly disengenuous and utterly shameless for you to attempt to smear me with that, but keep right on digging yourself into the hole you're in if you're not able to do any better...

bolshie's an awful gobshite, we've all started by knocking his flimsy 'argument' apart: but i fear you too will find yourself ground down on his seemingly endless stream of pisspoor wank.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

But this is the point. You are just dismissing all affairs as a private matter, when many affairs do involve emotional abuse and involve behaviour that shouldn't just be accepted or swept under the carpet as it can often be a form of domestic abuse, although obviously I agree that people shouldn't talk about their partner's sex life which is neither here nor there.

What are you actually suggesting here? That the SWP should judge its members on their romantic fidelity? That it should blur the lines of what constitutes "domestic abuse", by which I assume you mean "domestic violence" by including infidelity in that category?

If you aren't suggesting these things, then what on Earth are you wittering on about?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Nothing of even the slightest interest in the Weekly Worker this week.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

What are you actually suggesting here? That the SWP should judge its members on their romantic fidelity? That it should blur the lines of what constitutes "domestic abuse", by which I assume you mean "domestic violence" by including infidelity in that category?

If you aren't suggesting these things, then what on Earth are you wittering on about?

Exactly. The same goes for andysays and his outrage at clandestine affairs.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

The reason Pat Stack had concerns I imagine was for a variety of reasons, including the age difference, status/leadership in the SWP of Comrade Delta and the fact that there was alleged abuse.

I think it had more to do with the actual evidence he heard. Not your generic preconceptions about age difference and the alleged immaturity of teen women. The facts, about this man and this woman and what happened between them. All these other generalisations are irrelevant and frankly backward.

Evidence none of us have heard and without which we can't judge one way or the other.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

What are you actually suggesting here? That the SWP should judge its members on their romantic fidelity? That it should blur the lines of what constitutes "domestic abuse", by which I assume you mean "domestic violence" by including infidelity in that category?

If you aren't suggesting these things, then what on Earth are you wittering on about?

I don't mean domestic violence, as having an affair isn't violence, is it. I mean that affairs can be a form of emotional abuse. Obviously all affairs aren't like this, but there are instances where it can be. Obviously this would be a difficult area for a political organisation to deal with, but if a leading member of a socialist organisation was treating women like crap by having an affairs, then I don't think it would out of the question for other people to have a word with them and tell them they are being totally out of order i.e. it's not totally just a private matter.

However the main issue here is the fact that the woman was 17, there was a huge age gap, the power relations by him being a leader of the SWP and the fact that a rape allegation was dealt with by seven of his mates.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

I think it had more to do with the actual evidence he heard. Not your generic preconceptions about age difference and the alleged immaturity of teen women. The facts, about this man and this woman and what happened between them. All these other generalisations are irrelevant and frankly backward.

Evidence none of us have heard and without which we can't judge one way or the other.

I can't judge the evidence, no. But I can say that a bloke who is 48 having an affair with a 17 year old is almost certainly wrong and sleazy, but for a leading member of a socialist organisation to do it is even worse. You might think that's backward, I think you are backward for thinking that someones age is irrelevant.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I don't mean domestic violence, as having an affair isn't violence, is it. I mean that affairs can be a form of emotional abuse.

Do you think that the SWP should get involved in whether or not its members are faithful in their sexual relationships? This is really quite straightforward. If the answer is no, you should stop muddying the waters.

 

[audiotech]

Thoughts on 24 year old strippers marrying Texas oil billionaires in their 80's?

 

[JimW]

Thoughts on 24 year old strippers marrying Texas oil billionaires in their 80's?

Not an appropriate part of a transitional programme towards socialism.

 

[audiotech]

One hell of a way of expropriating the expropriators though.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

Do you think that the SWP should get involved in whether or not its members are faithful in their sexual relationships? This is really quite straightforward. If the answer is no, you should stop muddying the waters.

I actually agree this is a side issue, so lets just leave it. My only point was a general one that affairs aren't just a private issue in all circumstances. If someone wanted to take a bloke up on the fact that he was being out of order for treating someone like shit by having affairs then I think that's ok. Anyway lets just leave that point, it's not specific to this thread.

 

[Das Uberdog]

if the term 'emotional abuse' can be extended to 'having affairs' then it's meaningless.

tbh i think the term is verging on meaningless by anyone's definition anyway. not a particularly useful concept in this case or in any others.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

I can't judge the evidence, no. But I can say that a bloke who is 48 having an affair with a 17 year old is almost certainly wrong and sleazy, but for a leading member of a socialist organisation to do it is even worse. You might think that's backward, I think you are backward for thinking that someones age is irrelevant.

I'm glad you weren't in charge of my household when I was a kid or my parents wouldn't have let me watch Harold and Maude. Or Eastwood's thoroughly charming Breezy. Moral guardians like you would have protected me from filth like that, all that age mixing urgghghhh!

I grew up in the Irish educational system, with Franciscan monks and Christian Brothers, so I'm certainly not denying the reality of unhealthy sexual relations between the generations based on power. What I'm saying is you can't decide a relationship is of that nature from a distance and based on your own prejudices, you have to know the facts which despite everyone on this thread having read a transcript none of us do!

 

[newbie]

I can't judge the evidence, no. But I can say that a bloke who is 48 having an affair with a 17 year old is almost certainly wrong and sleazy,

I was with you until this post but I don't think this is reasonable. While friends and rellies of both parties may have reservations, it's ultimately up to the couple. If they're happy no-one else should be crying 'sleaze' (or indeed 'golddigger'). It's a wholly different matter if a complaint is made, because at that point someone else has to try to understand the dynamics of their relationship and it's utterly ludicrous to simply ignore the age difference.

 

[newbie]

Do you think that the SWP should get involved in whether or not its members are faithful in their sexual relationships? This is really quite straightforward. If the answer is no, you should stop muddying the waters.

If a complaint of sexual harrassment, or rape, is made to them they should accept their duty to the complainant and deal with the matter responsibly and honestly. If no complaint is made there's nothing to formally discuss.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

BB you can be ridiculous if you want and make comparisons with watching TV programmes, but the fact is that a woman has made a rape accusation against a 48 year old leader of the SWP and said it happened when she was 17. This was then investigated by his mates. Your response has been to try cover for the leadership at every turn, by either trying to find any angle you can to dismiss the power relations that are involved or by just dismissing all criticism as a betrayal of the IS tradition. A tradition that has made so many zig zags that who knows what it is anymore. Your posts come across like you aren't really concerned about what has gone on, you are just desperate for the leadership to prevail no matter what.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

BB you can be ridiculous if you want and make comparisons with watching TV programmes, but the fact is that a woman has made a rape accusation against a 48 year old leader of the SWP and said it happened when she was 17. This was then investigated by his mates. Your response has been to try cover for the leadership at every turn, by either trying to find any angle you can to dismiss the power relations that are involved or by just dismissing all criticism as a betrayal of the IS tradition. A tradition that has made so many zig zags that who knows what it is anymore. Your posts come across like you aren't really concerned about what has gone on, you are just desperate for the leadership to prevail no matter what.

She has and it is a hugely serious accusation that everyone in the swp had a duty to treat with the utmost seriousness. If they didn't then that needs exposing and sorting. But when people like you start blurring the distinction between affairs/age difference per se and abuse/rape then I reserve the right to make fun of you as a frightened moral guardian determined to protect us from adultery and May-December romances. These distinctions matter but you and I seem to differ over that. We also differ in that I don't honestly know what happened between the two people at the heart of this case whereas you seem to already know without having the slightest clue of the facts.

 

[imposs1904]

I think it had more to do with the actual evidence he heard. Not your generic preconceptions about age difference and the alleged immaturity of teen women. The facts, about this man and this woman and what happened between them. All these other generalisations are irrelevant and frankly backward.

Evidence none of us have heard and without which we can't judge one way or the other.

what's with the business of mentioning her "alleged immaturity"? What about Delta's immaturity?

Your hackishess really does leave a sour taste in the mouth. I can't even laugh at it anymore.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

what's with the business of mentioning her "alleged immaturity"? What about Delta's immaturity?

Your hackishess really does leave a sour taste in the mouth. I can't even laugh at it anymore.

Sorry but you've got this ase about face. I was quoting the moral guardian's notion that teens are immature. I'm more than prepared to believe the woman in this case was more emotionally mature than MS.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

She has and it is a hugely serious accusation that everyone in the swp had a duty to treat with the utmost seriousness. If they didn't then that needs exposing and sorting. But when people like you start blurring the distinction between affairs/age difference per se and abuse/rape then I reserve the right to make fun of you as a frightened moral guardian determined to protect us from adultery and May-December romances. These distinctions matter but you and I seem to differ over that. We also differ in that I don't honestly know what happened between the two people at the heart of this case whereas you seem to already know without having the slightest clue of the facts.

This is where your dishonesty keeps kicking in. I've never said I know what happened, I've never said affairs are all wrong (I've said they can be, and can involve treating people like shit, do you disagree with this?), and that age differences can matter and often do (where would you draw the line, would it be ok if she had been 15 or 16 and he had been 48, does the accusation of being a bourgeois moralist cover everything?). What I have said is that there are various problems that have happened that you can look at without having to know the details of what happened. Those revolve around power relations that are far more likely when a woman is very young, they are also more likely if the age gap is very big and they are also more likely if there is a power relation such as someone being a teacher/pupil, manager/young apprentice, leader of a political organisation/new young recruit.

Also how anyone can think investigating the allegation via seven of his mates is treating it with the utmost seriousness is slightly bizarre to say the least.

 

[imposs1904]

Sorry but you've got this ase about face. I was quoting the moral guardian's notion that teens are immature. I'm more than prepared to believe the woman in this case was more emotionally mature than MS.

fair enough. apologies. you're still a hack, though.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

Sorry but you've got this ase about face. I was quoting the moral guardian's notion that teens are immature. I'm more than prepared to believe the woman in this case was more emotionally mature than MS.

Again this is your dishonesty. I said I can believe that many older people are immature. What I also said was that a lot, and probably most people at 17 aren't emotionally mature adults. Not sure that makes me a moral guardian, it more makes you look like you will do anything to put the SWP leadership and Comrade Delta in a good light.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Again this is your dishonesty. I said I can believe that many older people are immature. What I also said was that a lot, and probably most people at 17 aren't emotionally mature adults. Not sure that makes me a moral guardian, it more makes you look like you will do anything to put the SWP leadership and Comrade Delta in a good light.

Look all I can do is quote your claim that "a bloke who is 48 having an affair with a 17 year old is almost certainly wrong and sleazy" and your belief that 17 years olds aren't mature enough to have relations with others above a certain age and let everyone else decide if you're being a tad bourgeois in your moralism.

I really haven't got an axe to grind on anyone's behalf, I'm calling it as I see it. If I was delta I certainly wouldn't be feeling good about myself right now.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

Again you are just totally twisting what I've said. And you obviously have got an axe to grind as you are a total loyalist for the SWP central committee, you are hardly approaching this from some kind of neutral position. You just ignore most things that are said, and twist other things that are said.

Where have I said anywhere that 17 years old aren't mature enough to have relations with others above a certain age? I haven't, have I. What I did say is that in my view most 17 year olds are not fully mature adults, and I hardly see anything controversial in saying that, and it's certainly not bourgeois morals, which seems to be your catch all for defending the SWP leadership no matter what they have done. There are reasons why the vast majority of 48 year olds wouldn't want to try and sleep with or have a relationship with a 17 year old, and it doesn't make them all bourgeois moralists. Let alone when they have a power relationship over them like Comrade Delta did.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Again you are just totally twisting what I've said. And you obviously have got an axe to grind as you are a total loyalist for the SWP central committee, you are hardly approaching this from some kind of neutral position. You just ignore most things that are said, and twist other things that are said.

Think I try to address most points. On the current subject I'm clearly not the only one to feel you've let your argument take you a little too far down the moral guardian path. But hey ho.

I'm not neutral about the demise of the SWP you're right. I think it would be a bad thing. But I don't have any personal stake in the outcome and don't have anyone to answer to, other than lapsed Catholic-Trot guilt of course.