Quite a list. It does exclude all the things Candy mentioned that they did differently in this case precisely because they were aware it was different and that the accused being a cc member made it more problematic. Like not allowing him in the room while they heard her evidence, letting her nominate one dc member to ask questions etc. But clearly that was just them covering themselves I guess in your worldview and not genuinely trying to apply their bloody politics to a messed up situation?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.....
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.
PS: Might be worth editing that to initials - the person in question strikes me as a classic vanity googler.
I bloody well hope they did yes.
You're quite right, didn't answer all your points, got work soon. But neither did you acknowledge the things they did to accommodate her needs given the special circumstances.
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.
as for whether you know me or not, I have no idea
It is also strange that the only person who knew W, withdrew on that basis.
I'm still not altogether convinced by that 58% figure. The Guardian piece sources the Telegraph piece as you probably noticed http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7442785/Rape-conviction-rate-figures-misleading.htmlThat's interesting, thanks cesare.
Fire-thingy?
out of curiosity, are young black working class lesbians more likely to be good judges than young black working class straight men? or was this some sort of perviness on tc's part?What was needed here was a process in which everyone concerned had confidence. The police cannot provide it, because they would be suspect - with good reason - of wanting to cause harm to an organisation whose members have often clashed with them on marches and over civil rights cases. But what the CC and the DC seem to have had a blind spot for is that being a longstanding member of the SWP is not a qualification for objectivity because of institutional bias. Tony Cliff used to say for similar reasons that the whole judiciary should be scrapped and that he looked forward to the day that a young, black, working class, lesbian presided over court cases. In the same spirit, they should have brought someone who was respected in the labour movement, acceptable to both parties, to conduct proceedings.
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
Are you on about Eddy Horner and Paul Sitwell?No allegations about one former member, around in the 70's, who went out and robbed a bank at gunpoint. Went on to take pot-shots at the police, as he tried to escape and ended up doing serious jail time. There was a TV dramatisation made of it, presented by film director, Michael Winner. Wonder if it ever made it onto YouTube? Interesting decade that.