SWP expulsions and squabbles

[Pickman's model]

The SWP sounds much more interesting now than it was in my day .

that it was dull in your day and interesting now may lead to speculation on how much of a role you played in keeping it the way it was.

 

[Das Uberdog]

not for the better i can tell you

 

[emanymton]

In my branch it was very well behaved although a few years before I joined one of the members had allegedlly tried to rob a local AWL member at knife point

Did he know he was an AWL member or did he just happen to pick an AWL member to mug?

 

[Das Uberdog]

the other point to make is that it would not have been worthwhile anybody other than 'Comrade Delta' challenging their expulsion in Disputes... for obvious reasons. though to my knowledge the other one accused of domestic abuse was guilty (though going through some kind of general melt-down not that it justifies anything in particular)

 

[Pickman's model]

In my branch it was very well behaved although a few years before I joined one of the members had allegedlly tried to rob a local AWL member at knife point

tried? and presumably failed. which would be typical, fucking trot can't mug someone properly even with a fucking knife.

 

[Das Uberdog]

an AWL member at that

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Did he know he was an AWL member or did he just happen to pick an AWL member to mug?

I think it was coincidence, it may not have been true it was the AWL who told me... I liked the SWP member in question, but I think he was capable of doing such a thing, I liked him more after hearing that

 

[emanymton]

I think it was coincidence, it may not have been true it was the AWL who told me... I liked the SWP member in question, but I think he was capable of doing such a thing, I liked him more after hearing that

I've never meet him and I like him.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

an AWL member at that

to be fair the AWL member was a working class Glaswegian ex Navvy with hands like massive shovels

 

[Pickman's model]

to be fair the AWL member was a working class Glaswegian ex Navvy with hands like massive shovels

the swappie fucked it up then.

i knew it bunch of useless tossers.

 

[Das Uberdog]

to be fair the AWL member was a working class Glaswegian ex Navvy with hands like massive shovels

rare!

 

[Pickman's model]

rare!

quite, doesn't sound the sort to be in the awl.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

the swappie fucked it up then.

i knew it bunch of useless tossers.

can't investigate crimes, can't carry out crimes, what part of the justice system can they participate in effectively?

 

[Pickman's model]

can't investigate crimes, can't carry out crimes, what part of the justice system can they participate in effectively?

victims of crime.

 

[emanymton]

an AWL member at that

Maybe he started to recite some of Sean Matgamna's poetry at him.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

quite, doesn't sound the sort to be in the awl.

He left shortly after telling me this after the local branch imploded

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

victims of crime.

fair point

 

[bolshiebhoy]

I did notice that Kimber didn't refute a single word of the damning transcript, but swtill seems to think people finding out what the SWP got upto is worse then the details of what they got upto.....

Why the fuck should he? The transcript reveals a fair debate, properly handled between people who share pretty much the same politics but are grappling with a very difficult situation the facts about which they can't agree. Some of the stuff claimed by speakers is shocking if true but the transcript reveals two sets of honourable people doing their best not to destroy each other if at all possible. Stands to their credit. Still think they had every right not to have it published and that the person who did betrayed all of them.

 

[frogwoman]

Why the fuck should he? The transcript reveals a fair debate, properly handled between people who share pretty much the same politics but are grappling with a very difficult situation the facts about which they can't agree. Some of the stuff claimed by speakers is shocking if true but the transcript reveals two sets of honourable people doing their best not to destroy each other if at all possible. Stands to their credit. Still think they had every right not to have it published and that the person who did betrayed all of them.

did it really need to be discussed in front of 500 people when the alleged victim was standing outside though?

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Why the fuck should he? The transcript reveals a fair debate, properly handled between people who share pretty much the same politics but are grappling with a very difficult situation the facts about which they can't agree. Some of the stuff claimed by speakers is shocking if true but the transcript reveals two sets of honourable people doing their best not to destroy each other if at all possible. Stands to their credit. Still think they had every right not to have it published and that the person who did betrayed all of them.

Given that one set of the people must be lying to quite an extent about some very serious things I can't see how both sides are honourable.

 

[Pickman's model]

did it really need to be discussed in front of 500 people when the alleged victim was standing outside though?

if you need to ask the question you already know the answer.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

did it really need to be discussed in front of 500 people when the alleged victim was standing outside though?

The process did not the detail of what happened to her. In fact it was the majority who tried to make sure that happened more than the antis who repeatedly strayed over that line.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Given that one set of the people must be lying to quite an extent about some very serious things I can't see how both sides are honourable.

I didn't read it that way. They had different interpretations of some of the same facts and they both had to repudiate outright lies that on my reading the majority on both sides didn't believe of each other.

 

[Fedayn]

Why the fuck should he? The transcript reveals a fair debate, properly handled between people who share pretty much the same politics but are grappling with a very difficult situation the facts about which they can't agree. Some of the stuff claimed by speakers is shocking if true but the transcript reveals two sets of honourable people doing their best not to destroy each other if at all possible. Stands to their credit. Still think they had every right not to have it published and that the person who did betrayed all of them.

Honourable people? Questioned a possible victim of rape about her sex life? Had a DC where ALL those on it knew the accused? Spoke about a potential victim but didn't let her in the room? Allowed the accused access to info but not the victim? Your definition of 'honourable' is frankly ludicrous and is in a dictionary that i'd hate to read.....

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

Read Newman's defence of his publication of the transcript on SU today. amounted to "it would have been published anyway but I edit it to protect identities." Totally apolitical response that didn't answer Kimber's complaints at all.

The problem with this thread now is that you have people who are acting like frightened liberals because the police weren't called rubbing shoulders with people who can see why a left org would want a disputes committee but think the process was flawed rubbing shoulders with people who don't give a damn and just wish they could hit comrade delta next they see him as they've already convicted him. Impossible for anyone to untangle that mess of positions and given they all want to bash the SWP they won't even try to.

Personally I think Pat Stack was closest to the truth even though I find it very difficult to believe such charges of the guy concerned. But if Stack thinks the probability is on the side of some form of harassment then there will be no easy end to this becuase of them all he's the one the old school cadre will trust most. Especially given the way a section of the majority seem to have taken to nasty smears against the antis. Can't end well :-(

Newman is a scum bag no doubt.

But it's not good saying those who say the police should be involved are just frightened liberals. As frogwoman says, what would you expect the SWP to do with a charge of peadoephilia or murder? There are some things that a group like that can't and shouldn't handle.

I also think the bit where you say "I find it very difficult to believe such charges of the guy concerned" backs up what was totally flawed about the investigation. All of them knew him, and all of them, understandably as they'd known him as a friend and comrade, would have had this same view. This is, whether someone likes it or not, gonna have a big impact. It is also strange that the only person who knew W, withdrew on that basis.

But more to the point it is a fact that rapists are often repeat offenders. What sanction can a group like the SWP possibily do to stop this if they were guilty? Whatever the flaws of the police and judicial system, they are the only ones who could, short of the SWP knee capping him or bumping him off, which isn't gonna happen.

I also think that while what the woman wants is paramount there are complications around something like rapists, because of the fact that they can do it again. There is duty to try and stop this, as well as being sensitive to what the woman wants to do. The same with domestic violence, where personally I think it is a good thing that other people other than the victim can report it. If someone is getting beaten every night, then in my view it is good if there is intervention, as someone who is being abused by their partner sometimes finds it difficult to come out against it for various reasons.

I still can't get over the fact that 500 people were discussing a rape case, with the alleged perpatrator sitting inside, and the alleged rape victim standing outside. Doesn't this seem a tad bizarre to you to say the least?

As I said earlier I think spanky longhorns posts were good on this in terms of what to do if the victim doesn't want to go to the police. But what has pressing ahead with the investigation done? The two women feel they have been treated very badly. If there had been a guilty verdict what then, and do you seriously think the police wouldn't have got involved at that point anyway, and then the preceeding investigation might make a case more difficult?

I accept this is a very difficult situation, but to present it as if those saying the police should be involved as liberals is ridiculous in my view.

 

[J Ed]

not from his ex but from a particularly obnoxious identity politics twat in the Sheffield branch who actually, without his ex ever being involved in the accusations, roused a bunch of the SWSS group to take him to a disciplinary for aggressive 'macho' behaviour, accused him (falsely) of being a sexual predator amongst the SWSS group, and the fight in the nightclub was just the piece de resistance in their attack confirming his generally 'masculine' (and therefore politically incorrect and threatening) persona. there were actually at least 2 other local members involved in that particular bar fight, who were never penalized.

Is this MB?

If so, that's the third time I've heard about him falsely accusing someone of an ism in the past couple of months.

 

[frogwoman]

lot of first posts on this thread

 

[J Ed]

Sorry, I've been admiring this thread and the Penny thread from afar for months and I just couldn't help myself...

 

[discokermit]

lot of first posts on this thread

can only be good.

 

[two sheds]

lot of first posts on this thread

hehe now that you say I read back: like this one in the OP?

The Weekly Worker (as always, caution advised) has an account of four people getting the boot in the run up to SWP conference. There's an amusingly Kafkaesque edge to it too. They were expelled for factionalism, seemingly as a result of facebook messages. But this happened during the "pre-conference period", where for a few months a year, SWP members are supposed by allowed to form factions. The problem is though that to gain factional rights, you need 30 signatories... but to gather those 30 signatories you have to engage in what the Central Committee considers "factionalism". Which is an expellable offence.