Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

SWP expulsions and squabbles

Is it? Seems to me that this were only the ones that she was recently informed about this 9 by someone maybe from the DC, but certainly someone in some authority - and i see no reason at all to believe that this could not mean 9 that this (DC) member knows about, so it could be read as 9 at least.
it could mean this, and it could mean that. We don't know.
 
On the "number 9" , this is what the SWP Central Committee say in their perspectives document for the Special Conference "Our position is that in these kinds of cases (and we know of only one other that the party has dealt with in recent memory—we do not know where the figure of “nine rape cases” that has circulated on the Internet comes from) is that it is up to the woman to decide whether she wishes to take the matter to the police." The use of "recent memory" is an odd phrase: Guessing, I assume they mean there are only two recent cases - "Delta" and the Sheffield Organiser. But they do leave the possibility there were 7 more going further back.
 
Is it? Seems to me that this were only the ones that she was recently informed about this 9 by someone maybe from the DC, but certainly someone in some authority - and i see no reason at all to believe that this could not mean 9 that this (DC) member knows about, so it could be read as 9 at least.
On re-reading it you are quite right. And from what scribblnig has just written, it sounds like a rather rumour mongered number anyway.
 
On re-reading it you are quite right. And from what scribblnig has just written, it sounds like a rather rumour mongered number anyway.
Quite possibly - someone seems to have used it in argument though and i think she'd only have made it public if she thought it was someone who would be in a position to know. Or it could be total bollocks.
 
fair enough, but do you accept my point?
Which is what? That the SWP is organisationally baggy as opposed to being opportunistic and hostile to others? Many a silly point is made about the SWP, but I would have thought it was un-Marxist to try and separate content and form in this manner.

I also think you really need to work out thinking beyond binaries all the time.
 
Which is what? That the SWP is organisationally baggy as opposed to being opportunistic and hostile to others? Many a silly point is made about the SWP, but I would have thought it was un-Marxist to try and separate content and form in this manner.

I also think you really need to work out thinking beyond binaries all the time.
organisational baggy?
Separate content and form in this manner?
Thinking beyond binaries?
 
that is listening according to SWP mindset, its what the faction have been saying the whole time!
but I've already said I wasn't talking about this issue on purpose. What he quoted wasn't referring to this issue. People constantly take what I'm saying to a different topic, and then complain when I reciprocate in kind. :eek:
 
That the SWP is organisationally baggy .

200px-Anthony_H_Wilson_hosting_After_Dark_in_1988.jpg


or


Cliff%202.jpg
 
it would be interesting for somebody to highlight how this should have been dealt with. Whether it should have been refused to be handled by the party? If they do handle it, how? What questions should have been asked?

These questions are not about defending the party, but learning what is the right way to deal with the situation.

the usual form of words is "bringing the <organisation> into disrepute".

Even noting what cesare et al said much earlier in the thread about best practice workplace investigations of wrongdoing I'm personally very doubtful a small voluntary body can pronounce on anything beyond reputation.

And tbh I don't have a scooby how they're supposed to protect the alleged perpetrator if they find his (her) actions did not bring them into disrepute. The entire internet shouting 'cover-up' is hardly a great outcome, for the accused (whose reputation is utterly trashed) or for those doing the investigation.
 
the usual form of words is "bringing the <organisation> into disrepute".

Even noting what cesare et al said much earlier in the thread about best practice workplace investigations of wrongdoing I'm personally very doubtful a small voluntary body can pronounce on anything beyond reputation.

And tbh I don't have a scooby how they're supposed to protect the alleged perpetrator if they find his (her) actions did not bring them into disrepute. The entire internet shouting 'cover-up' is hardly a great outcome, for the accused (whose reputation is utterly trashed) or for those doing the investigation.

Convicted or not, the outside world was never supposed to know.
 
they're idiots then. there's probably lots of reasons why they're not fit to run an allotment society but incidentals like the guy and the boxer last week ought to give them pause for thought.
 
originally the march was supposed to be against Spearmint Rhino (isn't it weird how they never target the brothels in Attercliffe?)

Not weird at all. SR (Spearmint Rhino, not the Social Revolutionary party) represents probably the most repugnant side of contemporary pornography/sex work - a fully functioning sex factory. The smaller dives are run by criminals and gangsters, and short of a fully emancipatory revolutionary situation, a la Barcelona 1936, I can't see these being a very logical target.

Not that I think picketing women in any sex club is a great idea - censorship and prudery don't make great bedfellows for a politics of emanipation. Something of the 60s New Left spirit has definitely to be rediscovered again one day. Trots have always been happy to work with sexual conservatives (Lyndsay German's famous: 'gay rights are not a shibboleth' comes to mind). I wonder why?
 
Not weird at all. SR (Spearmint Rhino, not the Social Revolutionary party) represents probably the most repugnant side of contemporary pornography/sex work - a fully functioning sex factory. The smaller dives are run by criminals and gangsters, and short of a fully emancipatory revolutionary situation, a la Barcelona 1936, I can't see these being a very logical target.

Whilst I agree in a general sense - at the end of the day both will need to be pressured - even to have success against just one. The way Speamint Rhino resists community pressure against a council planning go-ahead is it says you should let us open a proper, regulated, taxpaying, fully licensed venue - criminal venues are meeting "the demand" right now, open us up and make the police deal with these bad ones.

Not that I think picketing women in any sex club is a great idea - censorship and prudery don't make great bedfellows for a politics of emanipation. Something of the 60s New Left spirit has definitely to be rediscovered again one day. Trots have always been happy to work with sexual conservatives (Lyndsay German's famous: 'gay rights are not a shibboleth' comes to mind). I wonder why?

No one feminist or socialist - as far I know - pickets the women workers in a sex club, only right-wing religious forces do this, people have gathered outside entrances to ward off or cause commotion against customers/clients, with general leaflets about the profits secured from and damage caused by the sex industry.
 
See Mike Rosen has posted his thoughts - saying he thinks they'll have to acknowledge a total fuck up from start to finish over this
 
It's terrible when Woodhead did it (Woodhead began a romantic relationship with a 17-year-old female student in 1976 when Woodhead was a 30 year-old teacher):
"Members of the National Union of Teachers are receiving ballot papers for a boycott of appraisal. The vote is for action against a central plank of the performance related pay scheme the government wants to impose on teachers. It comes as education ministers are digging their heels in defending the man who sums up New Labour's vision of education—chief inspector of schools Chris Woodhead.... Now he is in trouble over allegations by his ex-wife, Cathy Woodhead that he lied about an affair with one of his pupils 20 years ago. David Hart, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, says, "The chief inspector, who is responsible for moral and spiritual standards in schools, is the subject of allegations that he has lied publicly." Woodhead says he only began an affair with Amanda Johnston after she ceased to be a pupil. But colleagues of his at the time have now broken their silence and backed Cathy Woodhead's claim that the affair began while Amanda Johnston was still her then husband's pupil. Education secretary David Blunkett, along with papers like the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph, are standing by Woodhead. The hypocrisy stinks." (Socialist Worker, 24 Apr 1999)

It's healthy and cannot be criticised when Delta did it (Delta began a romantic relationship with a 17-year-old female new SWSS recruit in 2008 when Delta was ?? years old)
"it was important to be clear that the disputes committee doesn’t exist to police moral, er, bourgeois morality, so we agreed that issues that weren’t relevant to us were ... whether the age differences in their relationship because as revolutionaries we didn’t consider that should be our remit to consider issues such as those"
 
never seems to be much coherance with anything the SWP says or does as witnessed by the above discussion over its homage to/opposition to identity politics and by the hypocracy demonstrated in the last post. Probably the only way one can explain it is if one principle - the principle of recruitment - is the only one posited that they pay any homage too. One cannot help but be reminded of St Pauls (Badious wonderful father of universalism)infamous "I am all things to all men" speech when it came towards how he tailored the xtian message to different audiences...

1 Corinthians 9:19-22


19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
 
I see you are quick to condemn someone without bothering to check the evidence. So here's the link again (which was provided by a SPEW member on another thread):

http://www.scribd.com/doc/125311046/TUSC-leaflet-for-Maltby-Town-Council-Election

Scroll down for the back pages and TUSC/Tory cuts (and the bowling green and tennis court) stuff.

No apology required.

As to the other business, I see a photo of one of the accused has appeared here. I'm just waiting for someone to publish his address. Anyway, I didn't have you in mind as your posts are generally so abstract and airy-fairy that it's not possible to grasp the point you are trying to make. You'd have thought a poet could do better.

On whether or not the personal is political, where do you draw the line? I think that SWP disciplinary committee report also dealt with somebody for brawling in a night club and other contributors here have reminisced about their policy on hairstyles. Is a person's hairstyle personal or political?

Apologies Jean-Luc, genuine mistake. I think the leaflet was pretty good though, and your criticisms of it a tad bizarre
 
It wasn't very coherent, originally the march was supposed to be against Spearmint Rhino (isn't it weird how they never target the brothels in Attercliffe?) but they changed it to being a march against any more stripclubs opening. Other than that I think it was supposed to be an exercise in feminist consciousness raising or something.

Quite a lot of the people involved don't know where Attercliffe is and would be horrified to learn that brothels
exist in Sheffield.

As an aside, I don't think many of the organisers thought much about the campaign beyond having a demo, and the reason that there were a few issues lumped in together without any suggestion of how to tackle them was that there wasn't much focus on what the march was for. This didn't seem to stop people having fun on the march
There's been no real follow up to it.
 
Which case? And why are you sure that the woman didn't want to go to the police in this case? I wasn't talking about the police anyway - i was talking about circulating info about the person expelled for rape - surely that a sort of basic responsibility here in order to allow others (inside and out of the party) to prepare and to potentially defend themselves? Or was that too high a price to pay for the trouble it would bring to the parties door?
Circulate to who you idiot?
 
Circulate to who you idiot?

One approach would be to circulate to organisations that have working-class people male or female, or women of any class in them, and particularly those that allow a chance for their rape to be repeated - those that have socials together etc.
 
One approach would be to circulate to organisations that have working-class people or women of any class in them, and particularly those that allow a chance for their rape to be repeated - those that have socials together etc.
Given that I said in this case the guy went back to Ireland butchers might have paused to question the context. The kid was a republican. work it out whether people were informed or not.
 
I know the woman didn't want to go to the police because I heard her arguments against doing that. Check the earlier part of the thread. This is a case where the SWP behaved with exemplary morality. no doubt some would say it was cause the guy was relatively new to the party but I'd say that was irrelevant .
 
Statement from York Anarchists. Highlights:

The central committee meanwhile have, predictably, pointed the blame at everyone but themselves – the internet (http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=12210), “feminists” (use of the term as an insult being disturbing in itself), “autonomists”, the media and a host of other scapegoats. The SWP’s pet jazz musician and notorious racist Gilad Atzmon, on the other hand, decided to go the whole hog and pin it on the global Jewish conspiracy (http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/sax-offender-vs-progressive-rapists.html) – something which, to our knowledge, the SWP has not responded to despite having given Atzmon a stage at Marxism and other events for years.


The problems which created this crisis – sexual abuse, the disbelief of survivors, hostility towards feminism and the tendency to close ranks around friends – are not unique to the SWP, nor to the left. And the anarchist movement is not immune either (http://libcom.org/files/Betrayal - a critical analysis of rape culture in anarchist subcultures.pdf). They are problems which exist throughout society. Equally, institutional corruption enabling this behaviour exists across the board, from trade unions and socialist groups to churches, schools, political parties and more, and the eagerness of some on the left to score political points throughout this affair has been shameful.

However, while the problems may be universal, the way those problems were addressed – and the resulting fallout – is inextricably linked to the SWP’s party structure and ideology, and the tendency of political cliques to protect their position whatever the cost.


All OK ish. But this last one is a bit weird - how can the good SWP / bad SWP line be drawn much less enforced?


Both comradeship and friendship are, and have to be, built on trust. And that trust has been grossly violated beyond repair.
If you are a member of the SWP and reading this, and if you find the party’s recent actions as repulsive as we do, then you continue to be both our comrade and our friend.
If you do not, however, then with all due respect: do not speak to us again.

Some love, and a lot of rage,
York Anarchists.

It all sounds like bluster. SWP were out with newspaper sellers and identikit card posters once again at the Whittington demo, it's impossible to tell who is and who isn't repulsed by SWP's actions, because if questioned just about all ordinary members probably would assert they are repulsed but that the CC has learnt its lesson, and that left unity is the important thing.
 
Given that I said in this case the guy went back to Ireland butchers might have paused to question the context. The kid was a republican. work it out whether people were informed or not.

Why does where the adjudged rapist went to matter? It's such an odd statement from you there. Why don't you explain what the whole context was, seeing as you are claiming it makes a crucial difference.
 
Back
Top Bottom