SWP expulsions and squabbles

[treelover]

its alarming that the only time the left has had such a high profile its in relation to these appalling accusations

the direct action scene has a number of these issues as well, as well as lotharios who just used the scene to serial pick up young woman..

 

[killer b]

Go away treelover

 

[treelover]

No, its an open board, i say the above in sadness and dismay, the last time they had such a high profile was during the iraq war,now this...

 

[bamalama]

What can I say, he stayed in my house in Dublin once when I was younger. Drank all our best whiskey mind, but he was the only SWPer my mum, who used to be an RTE film critic, trusted to say anything cultural at the time.

bit of a sticky wicket

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

The facts might be known to you but they're not to me. Was it on facebook? Have you got a link to the post/comment?

This stuff is serious, it's not a game - this is peoples' lives we're talking about. I can't really just say some anonymous bloke on the internet who seems to have a weird obsession with the SP says he made some dodgy comments can I?

I suspect they'll be dealing with the far, far more serious complaint before they even look at that anyway.

Out of interest, what would you do in their shoes? There's been a police investigation (which is what you said should have happened with Delta) so that one's not an option here. Serious question cos unless she takes civil proceedings I just don't know what they can do. And until I hear back I don't know what they are doing.

The RMT will have to make some kind of statement I would imagine, I want to know what they have to say about it too.

I'm waiting to get as much information as possible before I make any kind of assessment. Don't you think that's how it should be? Or would you rather we just assumed his guilt right now with hardly any information whatsoever?

Why do you have to put in it's not a game. Who would think that? Obviously it's serious, and no-one has said otherwise in any, shape or form. Just as people on here discussing the SWP case don't think it's a game. Again I've probably commented far more on the SWP than the Socialist Party, as have many people on here and on many other threads about the SWP. Maybe that makes everyone on this thread as having a weird obsession with the SWP. It's about far more than the SWP and SP though, and about how the left deals with situations like this in general.

I thought you already saw some time back when I said this was on facebook and I gave the exact quotes, but I stopped discussing it because people said it wasn't appropriate because of the police investigation. I accepted that, but obviously the circumstances have changed.

I agree they should look at the more serious case, but my point was that even if they can't or no-one could think of what to do, they could at least look at this. I'm assuming the various comments by SP members asking well what would you do means they are lost for ideas about what can be done about it. Well even if that was so this could be looked in to.

In terms of what to do about the more serious case, I don't understand why Steve Hedley hasn't been suspended by both the RMT and the Socialist Party.

 

[Oisin123]

with fake scouse accents?

A friend of mine from school became a Millie full timer and got one of those. Mind you, new SWP organiser quickly picked up the one-hand-chopping-into-the-other 'what we have to understand' gesture.

 

[emanymton]

A friend of mine from school became a Millie full timer and got one of those. Mind you, new SWP organiser quickly picked up the one-hand-chopping-into-the-other 'what we have to understand' gesture.

Did they start saying 'actually' every third word as well?

Just had a quick look and I can't see anything on the guardian website.

Eta this is two completely unrelated points

 

[emanymton]

Ah think I found it.

 

[butchersapron]

Another woman – who cannot be named for legal reasons – has told the Guardian that she also faced a welter of inappropriate questions during her own disputes committee hearing after] she reported being raped by another man in the party.

The young female member in the latest case says that the senior party member had physically abused her in front of other party members. Then, she claims, in early 2011 the male organiser pressured her into meeting and then raped her in her bedroom.

...

She described the line of questioning during her hour long cross examination as offensive. "[They asked me] had you been drinking? … Are you sure that you said no, and are you sure you didn't consent. Was he drunk? Because it would be different if he was drunk."

She says she was also interrogated about her previous sexual history.

During the hearing two other women made allegations against the senior figure including attempted rape and sexual impropriety.

...

She claims she was told the alleged rapist was going to be suspended and encouraged to read up on women's liberation. She then says she was warned against speaking about the hearing.

"They said, if you go around calling him a rapist, you'll be in trouble. If you tell anyone, you'll be in trouble … They didn't elaborate. They're not the kind of people to get on the wrong side of."

...

Charlie Kimber, the party's national secretary said: "The SWP strongly contests major elements of this account of the disputes committee hearing. The woman concerned brought serious accusations to our attention, we investigated, found against the accused and took prompt action. Those are the facts of this case."

Kimber said the SWP had taken effective action but said that he couldn't go into further details as the matter was confidential.

 

[emanymton]

Can someone please explain the logic of these two paragraphs to me.

She felt that if she'd gone to the authorities, she would have be expelled from the party, because of the SWP's hostility to the police. "If you go to the police you get kicked out automatically," she said.
Following the incident she quit the party but a local organiser then persuaded her to take her allegations to party's internal disputes committee.

So all Cohen has is a longer version of the story he put in his New Statesman article. I know kavenism thinks this is his ex but this story just doesn't ring true to me. Of course that could just be Cohen massively distorting what he has been told.

 

[articul8]

Go away and read about women's liberation

 

[butchersapron]

Can someone please explain the logic of these two paragraphs to me.

So all Cohen has is a longer version of the story he put in his New Statesman article. I know kavenism thinks this is his ex but this story just doesn't ring true to me. Of course that could just be Cohen massively distorting what he has been told.

Do you really think that's all that's there (taking it as true)?

 

[bolshiebhoy]

I honestly don't understand this story. Is it saying the bloke was found guilty of rape but slapped on the wrist or that he was found guilty of something else?

 

[emanymton]

Do you really think that's all that's there (taking it as true)?

What do you mean? There is nothing new in the article just a quick summary of the Delta case, then a longer version of the story from the new Statesman article with a couple of quotes from CK at the end.

 

[emanymton]

Weeks of digging and this is all they have?

 

[butchersapron]

What do you mean? There is nothing new in the article just a quick summary of the Delta case, then a longer version of the story from the new statement article with a couple of quotes from CK at the end.

Ok:

1) going to the police with rape claims = automatic expulsion = internal pressure to cover up rape claims to the potential danger of others inside and outside the party.
2) acceptance of public physical abuse.
3) demonstration that the total fuck up of the DC's first publicised inquiry and the sort of bullshit what were you wearing that night? had you been drinking was not a one off and did in fact also happen at least once when - for some reason - two CC members alone -carried out an inquiry - that this sort of thing appears to now be part of the central leaderships culture. This happens because the CC makes it happen.
4) That there are at least one (quite probably two) other allegations of rape against the person the woman says raped her that these CC members were informed of.
5) That pressure not to talk about her experience - either of the alleged rape or the SWPs internal process = internal pressure to cover up rape claims to the potential danger of others inside and outside the party.
6) All this = massive lack of social responsibility and shows utter contempt for those outside the party.
edit: I'd add another couple
7) that leading party members cannot be justifiably accused of rape in the party
8) That this is what women's liberation looks like

And you don't see any of this - really?

 

[butchersapron]

I honestly don't understand this story. Is it saying the bloke was found guilty of rape but slapped on the wrist or that he was found guilty of something else?

Of course you don't bb, of course you don't. I don't understand why on this weekend of all weekends you would put on an eh? face and say nothing to see here etc do i?

 

[emanymton]

Ok:

1) going to the police with rape claims = automatic expulsion = internal pressure to cover up rape claims to the potential danger of others inside and outside the party.
2) acceptance of public physical abuse.
3) demonstration that the total fuck up of the DC's first publicised inquiry and the sort of bullshit what were you wearing that night? had you been drinking was not a one off and did in fact also happen at least once when - for some reason - two CC members alone -carried out an inquiry - that this sort of thing appears to now be part of the central leaderships culture. This happens because the CC makes it happen.
4) That there are at least one (quite probably two) other allegations of rape against the person the woman says raped her that these CC members were informed of.
5) That pressure not to talk about her experience - either of the alleged rape or the SWPs internal process = internal pressure to cover up rape claims to the potential danger of others inside and outside the party.
6) All this = massive lack of social responsibility and shows utter contempt for those outside the party.

And you don't see any of this - really?

Apart from 2 (which did stand out to me) none of that is a new.

 

[Jon-of-arc]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...missing-attack-claim-by-activist-8527208.html

Why haven't the Socialist Party or the RMT suspended Steve Hedley while the investigation is carried out. Especially as the police have said they would have prosecuted if the six month limit hadn't been passed. People are suspended in workplaces for far less serious accusations. What reason does the Socialist Party give for not suspending him? I'm presuming they haven't as no SP member will answer the question and he is still listed as a "prominent person" on their website.

The RMT presumably can't suspend him for police (allegedly - I've only seen that comment on Carolines blog) saying that they would prosecute if it wasnt for the 6 month time limit? What with 2nd hand police promises that they "would have done something" being quite different from a conviction for assault, which would merit further action.

Do you think it is right to suspend someone from their work based upon a single unproven allegation? I'd feel uncomfortable with that.

 

[emanymton]

Apart from 2 (which did stand out to me) none of that is a new.

Should add that this is one of the parts of the story that does not ring true to me, I don't believe a man in the SWP could physical abusing a women in front of other SWP members and 'get away with it' the other way round however...

 

[emanymton]

The RMT presumably can't suspend him for police (allegedly - I've only seen that comment on Carolines blog) saying that they would prosecute if it wasnt for the 6 month time limit? What with 2nd hand police promises that they "would have done something" being quite different from a conviction for assault, which would merit further action.

Do you think it is right to suspend someone from their work based upon a single unproven allegation? I'd feel uncomfortable with that.

It is perfectly acceptable to suspend someone on full pay pending the outcome of an investigation.

 

[butchersapron]

Apart from 2 (which did stand out to me) none of that is a new.

There is no new statesman piece - there was a spectator piece which contained this:

I wanted to tell you that I was in the SWP a few years ago, and was physically and sexually abused. Following the rape, I left the party, but was encouraged to take the complaint to the disputes committee to make sure he didn’t do it to other women in the party. The disputes committee meeting lasted 5 hours. I was asked if I had been drinking. They said that if {the alleged assailant} and I had recently broken up my case would be invalid. They constantly asked me if I was still attracted to him, and referred to instances of him hitting me as ‘shaking’. They also constantly asked if I was sure I had not consented to sex.

The disputes committee also told me that if I talked to the media or anyone else that I was in trouble. {The man} was allowed to bring two character witnesses who claimed I was a convincing slut, and he had my statement for a month before the meeting, but I had no idea what he would say in his
statement.”

So comparing, the quick list i made on this new article then:

the original doesn't contain 1)
it doesn't contain 2)
the new one beefs up 3)
and adds info not contained in the original as to who held the hearing and that they were both on the CC it adds two other rape allegations, so making 4) new
it also beefs up 5)
and suggests the claim 7) which wasnot contained in the original so new
6) and 8) we can leave to politics for now.

 

[Das Uberdog]

1) and 2) i find hard to believe

edit: 1) may be true only as a lie 'Delta' cast himself to prevent the issue arising within the party, but i'd say not true as a part of a 'cultural' element of the party

 

[emanymton]

There is no new statesman piece - there was a spectator piece which contained this:



So comparing, the quick list i made on this new article then:

the original doesn't contain 1)
it doesn't contain 2)
the new one beefs up 3)
and adds info not contained in the original as to who held the hearing and that they were both on the CC it adds two other rape allegations, so making 4) new
it also beefs up 5)
and suggests the claim 7) which wasnot contained in the original so new
6) and 8) we can leave to politics for now.

I need to go out now but adding more points to your original post then coming back and saying see these weren't there is a bit shit don't you think?

 

[butchersapron]

Should add that this is one of the parts of the story that does not ring true to me, I don't believe a man in the SWP could physical abusing a women in front of other SWP members and 'get away with it' the other way round however...

Well apparently whatever happened, the two CC members who investigated suggested it constituted 'shaking' her.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Of course you don't bb, of course you don't. I don't understand why on this weekend of all weekends you would put on an eh? face and say nothing to see here etc do i?

I know Cohen has an agenda and that the timing isn't accidental. Do you? But I honestly don't understand the allegation. If the story is saying the guy was found guilty of rape but wasn't dealt with properly that's appalling. But is it saying that? It's badly written and ambiguous but I can't work out if that's cause the journalism is shit or the facts don't add up.

 

[butchersapron]

I need to go out now but adding more points to your original post then coming back and saying see these weren't there is a bit shit don't you think?

No i do not as i clearly said that they were edited in - if i had prodded you in the chest and said why have you ignored these edited in points then you might have a point yourself here - but as i didn't...Also given that i then included them in my reply to you i think it is fair to say that i, in fact, again highlighted that i had edited in these points for you

 

[Jon-of-arc]

It is perfectly acceptable to suspend someone on full pay pending the outcome of an investigation.

Acceptable, but 1SS seems to assume that it is the only correct thing to do.

Given that the police are taking no further action, it would seem a bizarre and unfair way of dealing with the situation. It's going to come down to one persons word against another's, in the RMT investigation. If there was damning and conclusive evidence that Hadley was/is the wrong un, then a suspension would seem sensible, but given that there isn't I just cannot see justification for a suspension.

 

[butchersapron]

I know Cohen has an agenda and that the timing isn't accidental. Do you? But I honestly don't understand the allegation. If the story is saying the guy was found guilty of rape but wasn't dealt with properly that's appalling. But is it saying that? It's badly written and ambiguous but I can't work out if that's cause the journalism is shit or the facts don't add up.

It explicitly says that he wasn't found guilty of rape - because the CC members weren't judging on the truth of the rape allegation - which is why you've brought it up, so that you can say well he wasn't found guilty of rape, what do you want the SWP to have done if this is the case? They followed all their rules.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Well apparently whatever happened, the two CC members who investigated suggested it was 'shaking her'.

Which could be something very bad or very minor. I got a world of shit from other members and an organiser for publicly shouting at a woman I was involved with (and no Im not making this up, its something im not proud of) and I would be amazed if the party turned a blind eye to anything more physcial than that, something that publicly hurt or frightened a woman.