SWP expulsions and squabbles

[past caring]

pc - in the context of Candy discussing chauvinist abuse and DC action against it - it most probably is an aggravating factor of sexist abuse.

We're left to guess though, aren't we?

Could just as easily be (and certainly reads as if) he just gave someone a right-hander and called them a cunt.

 

[Athos]

"The Disputes Committee’s functions are to maintain and strengthen party unity and principle"

Note, this is listed as the first and primary function.

Kinda like the approach the catholic church takes to investigating noncery.

 

[Athos]

Yes -as you say. But, we're drifting into discussing the 'verdict' rather than the 'investigation' right now. Don't think we should be (and i did help move it towards this i know)

You're right. Without knowing the facts, we didn't ought to comment on guilt or innocence. Thought the obvious procedural flaws make it clear that the outcome of the investigation is not sound. Can't see that there's too much more to say about the fact. The more interesting question being why it was allowed to happen?

 

[KeeperofDragons]

So, the CC/DC tells the police this woman who doesnt want to make a complaint has made a complaint? How would that work? The very way the police deal with murder - the evidential basis still extant after four years for one thing - makes those two things very different. And how far would you go? Reporting them for nicking from the petty cash tin?

If she makes a complaint but doesn't want to take it to have a police investigation or go to court they count it as a solved crime & the name of the perpetrator (alleged) is kept on file & if there is another complaint about them an investigation is triggered.

 

[temper_tantrum]

Will the SWP be investigating burglaries from now on?

 

[two sheds]

To an outsider it does all smack of scientology meets the Soviet Peoples' Commisariat for Justice.

 

[cesare]

We're left to guess though, aren't we?

Could just as easily be (and certainly reads as if) he just gave someone a right-hander and called them a cunt.

Odd way for a self appointed court to function. Taking previous into account before not sentencing.

 

[mk12]

Kinda like the approach the catholic church takes to investigating noncery.

It's slightly different, but look at this article in SW on the cover up in the Catholic Church: http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=20737

A 2009 public inquiry into church sexual abuse, found that the church’s motivation was: “The maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the Church, and the preservation of its assets.

“All other considerations, including the welfare of children and justice for victims, were subordinated to these priorities.”

But as Eamonn McCann recently commented, “That’s the point. There was no decision involved. They will have acted naturally, instinctively. It is not that they rejected the idea of reporting the abuse to the secular authorities. The thought will not have occurred to them.”

 

[sihhi]

We're left to guess though, aren't we?

Could just as easily be (and certainly reads as if) he just gave someone a right-hander and called them a cunt.

Could be but there's a lot that's unspoken, perhaps there was another reason why B was nabbed for that crime.

After all mk12 got done for doing something that other SWP members had done - and the specific crime - mentioning the names of 3 people who write in the Socialist Worker - was laughable.


Weekly Worker back ages ago had this approach

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/847/another-one-bites-the-dust

Perhaps to ensure comrade Smith accepts his humiliating demotion quietly and is not tempted to rebel at conference unpleasant rumours have been circulated. They amount to character assassination. Eg, we at this paper have been sent allegations of sexual harassment and a central committee investigation. Frankly, we are not talking Gerry Healy, but of the kind of thing one hears in any fraught divorce case.

In fact just reading through that link makes me think WTF why did I post all I have in this thread:
A group that still tries to impose this stuff onto its new members

The Vietnam solidarity protest in October 1968 saw the IS grow by hundreds, while others on the left failed to increase in size. This was down to the sharpness of our message and its concrete application to the movement. Selling Socialist Worker can perform a similar function

 

[emanymton]

Amongst all the understandable attention paid to the 'investigation' of the alleged rape, this seems to have been overlooked...



Can anyone with more recent experience of the SWP than me (and even when I was in, I didn't ever go to conference) tell me whether delegates/members are provided with any more detail? Because on the face of it this doesn't seem like something the party ought to get involved with, unless there were particular aggravating factors - in which case, you'd think they'd want to say what those aggravating factors were.

Or is that the culture of the SWP really has changed to the extent that this kind of thing is now viewed as a disciplinary offence? (i.e. I had a load of 'non-political' fights with blokes in clubs and pubs when I was still a member - quite a few that district organisers etc got to hear about - and there was never any suggestion that I was going to get shown the door for it).

Presumably there was not more detail because the individual concerned was not contesting it . I did think this one was a bit odd as well, maybe it was who they where fighting with?

 

[butchersapron]

Presumably there was not more detail because the individual concerned was not contesting it . I did think this one was a bit odd as well, maybe it was who they where fighting with?

It's not the lack of contestation that's pricking ears up - it's the thing they're 'charged' with.

Who are they not allowed fight with on the weekend now then?

 

[Athos]

... maybe it was who they where fighting with?

His handler?

 

[barney_pig]

It all makes me wish I had actually hit the bastard with a chair when I had the chance

 

[mk12]

It all makes me wish I had actually hit the bastard with a chair when I had the chance

I should have told him to "fuck off" before hanging up on him. Regrets...

 

[emanymton]

Well from my link to the constitution, I see that the role of the Disputes Committee is:



Which is a bit different, to what you think it is.

I disagree, the full blurb may be a broader sounding. But how does this differ substantially from what I said?

the Disputes Committee’s functions are to maintain and strengthen party unity and principle and to investigate complaints relating to disciplinary matters by its members or units

 

[emanymton]

It's not the lack of contestation that's pricking ears up - it's the thing they're 'charged' with.

Who are they not allowed fight with on the weekend now then?

I thought it was both.

 

[sihhi]

It's not the lack of contestation that's pricking ears up - it's the thing they're 'charged' with.

Who are they not allowed fight with on the weekend now then?

Other working-class people, maybe working class women? The fact that the target of the violence or the abuse isn't mentioned is odd.

 

[butchersapron]

I thought it was both.

What was both?

 

[two sheds]

If the SWP implodes does that mean that Workers' Girder will be able to take over the poster market? Every demonstration from now on could look like a mass Workers' Girder movement

 

[butchersapron]

Other working-class people, maybe working class women? The fact that the target of the violence or the abuse isn't mentioned is odd.

It is, i get that she was talking shorthand and just giving examples to shore up the DC's cred as taking issues seriously - but even thinking that expelling people for fighting in a club will shore up support is a bit telling to me.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

I should have told him to "fuck off" before hanging up on him. Regrets...

I should have told him to fuck off when I saw him in town recently

 

[emanymton]

What was both?

I thought Past caring was question both the offense and why more details where not provided.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

It is, i get that she was talking shorthand and just giving examples to shore up the DC's cred as taking issues seriously - but even thinking that expelling people for fighting in a club will shore up support is a bit telling to me.

whose culture?

 

[butchersapron]

I thought Past caring was question both the offense and why more details where not provided.

Yeah, but i was replying to your post. (anyway, i'm off over the road soon so don't take any non-responses to replies as being rude)

 

[cesare]

I disagree, the full blurb may be a broader sounding. But how does this differ substantially from what I said?

Because you said its role isn't to judge guilt or innocence, when it appears that it is, and that's what they've done. Well, "not proven".

 

[butchersapron]

whose culture?

Their streets

 

[emanymton]

Because you said its role isn't to judge guilt or innocence, when it appears that it is, and that's what they've done. Well, "not proven".

I also said that in this case it amounts to the same thing. MAybe I should have been clearer, the DC may in some cases have to decided if A did X, but it's primary role is to decided if doing X is a breach of party discipline or not.

 

[emanymton]

Yeah, but i was replying to your post. (anyway, i'm off over the road soon so don't take any non-responses to replies as being rude)

I won't i just won't reply, oh Wait.

I agree that case stuck me as odd, unless he decked the chair of the local trades council or something I don't see what business it is of the SWP if he happened to get pissed at the weekend and get into a fight.

 

[barney_pig]

I should have told him to fuck off when I saw him in town recently

Was he running?

 

[mk12]

He was probably on a moped.