SWP expulsions and squabbles

[butchersapron]

I think you have to be (talking about them, not armed). Sitwell was an SWP member, they robbed the factory payroll after a pretty violent strike and a copper was kiled. Eh pleaded guilty to the robbery and to murder - guilty and proud to be was his famous statement. PS got guilty on robbery and manslaughter.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I would suspect that there was no standard of proof outlined and understood by all beforehand.

Standards of proof are a bourgeois affectation, comrade. Surely you know this?

 

[ViolentPanda]

A response from Scotland

http://www.2ndcouncilhouse.co.uk/blog/2013/01/06/misogynists-and-the-left/

Anyone know anything about:

Mentions rumours about Smith. As I said earlier in this thread, I don't think it's likely any of the Swappie-watchers on Urban haven't heard at least some of them. Obviously we shouldn't judge anyone purely on rumour, ut one would have thought that any meaningful DC investigation that was actually looking to establish "truth" would have looked into Smith's past conduct too.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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

Isn't that still a Swappie initiation rite?

E2A:
Actually, that's finding an AWL member and then robbing them at knifepoint.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

 

[Grandma Death]

Im an ex swp member and Alex Callinicos unfriended me on FB for disagreeing with his views on the riots. Am I in the right thread?

 

[ViolentPanda]

I would imagine there are not many people called Spiney in your neck of the woods

Although there are plenty of Normans, mostly the illegitimate sons of the famed Yorkshireman, sometime comedian and avid cocksman, Norman Collier, all (very egotistically, I might add!) named for their famous dad.

 

[SpineyNorman]

It's not as if I'm hard to spot either

 

[ViolentPanda]

I think a clear political point can be made here about the dangers of assumptions of unique competence (by virtue of filling in a membership form!) and how that is fostered developed and utilised by vanguardist forms of organisation (no matter what open or participatory icing they put on their cake).

A presumption of unique competence is a necessary feature of Vanguardism per se, surely? Why else would there be an automatic assumption on the part of the upper heirarchy of such organisations that they're fit to lead the proletariat?

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'm not sure they would find many at Friebox

The more I think about it, the more Firebox strikes me as gross sexism and chauvinism, the name obviously being about the female generative organ (the "box") and the supposed "hotness" of females for sexual congress "the "fire").
I believe we should picket this sexist outlet, comrades!

 

[barney_pig]

The film was an itv one, called wallpaper warrior

 

[butchersapron]

The film was an itv one, called wallpaper warrior

Ah, so was Horner and Sitwell. Ta.

 

[Athos]

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.

I think you've missed the point that anyone sufficiently competent to handle such a matter would want fuck all to do with the SWP.

 

[Cornetto]

and why not disabled?

and why not unicyclists as long as they check their privallege

 

[butchersapron]

I think you've missed the point that anyone sufficiently competent to handle such a matter would want fuck all to do with the SWP.

I reckon many people in the party could be, this pathetic committee. No

 

[kavenism]

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)

Comrade Perry was also involved in the expulsion of comradeJS (I'm not going to name him. If you've been around the SWP over the last three years you'll know who I mean) for his “activities” with another comrade. The expulsion (for only two years I might add) that was agreed to was in order to dissuade the women from going to the police. She had rather less confidence in the SWP’s internal processes. This is from the horse's mouth by the way and not hearsay. That man's conduct has always stunk of something unpleasant.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

No-one who has said don't go to the police and have an internal investigation has said what the result of a guilty verdict would be in terms of punishment. The most that has been said is that he would get expelled from the SWP, people in the SWP wouldn't speak to him and he would lose the funding to stay as a full time activist. Hardly punishment enough for being a rapist?

No-one who thinks it shouldn't be dealt with by the police has come back on the fact that if the SWP did find him guilty then the police would almost inevitably get involved anyway, and there is chance they will if they don't. This would then mean that such an investigation could mess up a criminal trial.

Lastly there is the fact that many rapists reoffend. As a group like the SWP has no power to stop this i.e. it can't send someone to prison, what do they suggest? How would they feel if a person went out and raped someone again and they hadn't done all they could to convince someone to go to the police? Is there an argument in some cases that the police should be told anyway, because a rapist could still pose a danger? With domestic abuse it is now the case that police will take action with domestic violence as soon as they know about, they don't have to be given permission. Is this necessarily a bad thing?

Interesting about the 58% conviction rate for rape, I'd always believed the urban myth about it being 6%.

 

[Cornetto]

I think you have to be (talking about them, not armed). Sitwell was an SWP member, they robbed the factory payroll after a pretty violent strike and a copper was kiled. Eh pleaded guilty to the robbery and to murder - guilty and proud to be was his famous statement. PS got guilty on robbery and manslaughter.

BILL SPEED - SWP Dave

http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist/ITVProgs/1992/10/02/T01510001/?s=*

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

Although thinking about it more I can see where the 6% goes from, as that is the total figure. 12% of rapes that are reported end up in court, and 58% of those cases result in a guilty verdict. So that is about 7% of the total. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of rapes are never reported in the first place, so that would mean that less than 3.5% of rapes result in a conviction.

 

[sihhi]

No-one who has said don't go to the police and have an internal investigation has said what the result of a guilty verdict would be in terms of punishment. The most that has been said is that he would get expelled from the SWP, people in the SWP wouldn't speak to him and he would lose the funding to stay as a full time activist. Hardly punishment enough for being a rapist?

No-one who thinks it shouldn't be dealt with by the police has come back on the fact that if the SWP did find him guilty then the police would almost inevitably get involved anyway, and there is chance they will if they don't. This would then mean that such an investigation could mess up a criminal trial.

Lastly there is the fact that many rapists reoffend. As a group like the SWP has no power to stop this i.e. it can't send someone to prison, what do they suggest? How would they feel if a person went out and raped someone again and they hadn't done all they could to convince someone to go to the police? Is there an argument in some cases that the police should be told anyway, because a rapist could still pose a danger? With domestic abuse it is now the case that police will take action with domestic violence as soon as they know about, they don't have to be given permission. Is this necessarily a bad thing?

Interesting about the 58% conviction rate for rape, I'd always believed the urban myth about it being 6%.

It's not your judgement to make it's the victim's as to whether they go to the police. There are all sorts of issues why someone wouldn't. There's something else going on with your posts. Do you think a court-imposed sentence clears up sexual predation and rape? That's the real question that should be asked of you.


Also, there is no 58% conviction rate. That's a piece by someone who is a barrister bigging themselves up, attacking people who tell the truth about the criminal justice system. If you're lower class or lower migration status and you're a victim of someone white higher up - if you're a striker and have been sworn at and thumped by a strikebreaker - 9 times out of 10, justice will not come. Most studies have around 33% per cent of those that come to trial as ending up with conviction.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

On the conviction rate I put another post to qualifty that.

I didn't say it was my judgement as to whether to go to the police. But it is more complicated that. What if by going to the police you can stop another rape taking place? What about domestic violence cases where people have intervened, can you say that is always wrong, as I don't think it is. The police are now obliged to act if they think there is domestic violence going on, and not just say "it's a domestic". Obviously there are huge flaws with the police and justice system, but what else is there in this society at the moment? Of course a court imposed sentence doesn't stop sexual predation and rape, but at least it takes rapists off the street, and if they do it again they will usually get a heavier sentence again. Surely better than withdrawing someones membership card.

 

[Das Uberdog]

i don't think anyone has said 'it shouldn't go through the police', but it didn't go through the police and that is just a fact

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

Well someone has posted above that Comrade Perry expelled someone to stop them from going to the police.

And as of yet we have no way of knowing how much support was given to try and persuade the person in question to go to the police. And no-one has said if there are any limits at all on what the SWP would investigate. Murder? Paedoephilia?

 

[kavenism]

Do you think a court-imposed sentence clears up sexual predation and rape? That's the real question that should be asked of you.

Do you think a half baked “verdict” pronounced by a farcical quasi court run by Trots with the authority of an unripe banana clears it up?

 

[Das Uberdog]

who in this thread has said that these things shouldn't go through the police? and what should you do if an allegation of this nature isn't being in some way dealt with externally by the law? if an accusation of paedophilia was made against a party member, and no external arbiting force was involved to legally deal with that issue and yet the accusation remained, i don't think the party would have any choice not to conduct its own investigation. either that or, as has already been said, ignore the accusation completely

 

[sihhi]

I didn't say it was my judgement as to whether to go to the police. But it is more complicated that. What if by going to the police you can stop another rape taking place? What about domestic violence cases where people have intervened, can you say that is always wrong, as I don't think it is. The police are now obliged to act if they think there is domestic violence going on, and not just say "it's a domestic". Obviously there are huge flaws with the police and justice system, but what else is there in this society at the moment? Of course a court imposed sentence doesn't stop sexual predation and rape, but at least it takes rapists off the street, and if they do it again they will usually get a heavier sentence again. Surely better than withdrawing someones membership card.

You say it's not your judgement, and then proceed to give us your judgement that going to the police in this case will stop a rape taking place and that the case should have been taken to the police against the wishes of the person involved.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

The question for me is how much effort was actually made to persuade the woman in question to go to the police. In the case of a paedoephilia allegation there is no way the police would't investigate. Also no-one has said anything about the fact that while the victims views are paramount, there is another issue of stopping another rape from happening by going to the police.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

You say it's not your judgement, and then proceed to give us your judgement that going to the police in this case will stop a rape taking place and that the case should have been taken to the police against the wishes of the person involved.

I haven't said that at all. I'm saying that there isn't an absolute. I would go to the police if I thought it would stop a rape, even if a previous victim didn't want me to. What is the alternative, let someone be raped?

There is also the issue that by having an investigation a guilty verdict would almost certainly alert the police who would then take action. So what would you do, nothing?

 

[sihhi]

Do you think a half baked “verdict” pronounced by a farcical quasi court run by Trots with the authority of an unripe banana clears it up?

Have you read any of my posts here?

 

[Das Uberdog]

as has been shown by the stats, rape is an incredibly difficult crime for our court system to prosecute - i think there are a lot of rational reasons why the girl might not have wanted to undergo the stress involved in pursuing a criminal conviction, which have already been listed in detail. at the end of the day, she made a conscious decision not to do so - that much is accepted on all sides. simply encouraging her to go to the police regardless of context is a pretty vague position, even if we can generally accept that a police investigative unit would be a better assessor of the evidence, and a court a better arena for the issue to be dealt with. but at the end of the day, regardless of what we think might be better, it didn't happen. so what does the party do?