SWP expulsions and squabbles

[kavenism]

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?

To clarify; someone was expelled as an attempt to appease another comrade who claimed to have been attacked from going to the police.

And yeah that is the big question, where does the SWP draw the line as to what it can investigate. I’m all for internal investigations, my workplace has them, as do most. But their mandate and limitations are explicit. An HR department might investigate someone for harassment or sexist behavior or such like, but none would touch a rape claim. And they certainly wouldn’t pat themselves on the back for offering such a venerable alternative to the absolute corruption of the bourgeois court system.

Oh and another thing, the essence of justice is balance, getting expelled from the SWP and thrust back into reality really doesn’t seem to balance out being raped. Unless someone knows whether anything stronger was on the cards? Perhaps imprisonment in a cupboard at their Vauxhall HQ?

 

[frogwoman]

I am not sure anyone is saying that an investigation shouldn't have been carried out but it shouldn't have been done by mates of the accused with the alleged victim standing outside on the pavement

 

[Das Uberdog]

I am not sure anyone is saying that an investigation shouldn't have been carried out but it shouldn't have been done by mates of the accused with the alleged victim standing outside on the pavement

one stop shop appears to be arguing that

 

[SpineyNorman]

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.

I agree that there are genuine debates to be had over whether rapes should be charged even if the victims doesn't want to press charges. (I think it's probably right that it's up to the victim - I'd certainly not be in favour of any kind of law that said a victim has to testify if they didn't want to but I realize potential future victims could suffer as a result which is obviously also far from ideal).

I'm just not sure how useful it is to have that debate on this thread. British law is what it is and it's in that context that these events took place, and so it's a bit of a moot point really.

I agree with a lot of your more recent posts on this thread though. There are specific elements within this (questions re: sexual past, drinking; disucssing it in front of 500 people; her being left outside while the alleged attacker was allowed to remain inside to hear the debate etc) that I'm very very uncomfortable about to say the least but I'm not keen on saying much more right now because I don't really have any idea how it should have been handled - all I can really say right now is 'not like this.'

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

DU you still haven't commented on the fact that a guilty verdict by the SWP would almost certainly have resulted in a police investigation.

 

[Pickman's model]

DU you still haven't commented on the fact that a guilty verdict by the SWP would almost certainly have resulted in a police investigation.

you do know that 'something hypothetical might have almost certainly resulted in something else' is not a fact, don't you?

 

[sihhi]

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.

Farcical. You're convinced of your alternative version of events. Going to the police doesn't stop another rape from happening, unless you want low probability to mean certainty. People's vigilance and self-defence about Delta after the first allegations stop it as much as "the police" do.

 

[Das Uberdog]

so what? that's alright isn't it (unless the victim still refused to prosecute)? the point is that the SWP wouldn't be able to continue functioning properly with an alleged rapist in their midst, and would need to deal with that problem themselves or de facto basically tell the alleged victim to just get on with it or leave

edit: at one stop shop

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

one stop shop appears to be arguing that

I haven't said that. I'm saying there are complicated issues, such as preventing future attacks, which can't be ignored.

I'm not at all convinced that the SWP tried to persuade the woman in question to go to the police, while at the same time getting support from an organisation like Rape Crisis. The fact that the investigation was totally abysmal for the reasons Spiney Norman has outlined makes it far worse again.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

you do know that 'something hypothetical might have almost certainly resulted in something else' is not a fact, don't you?

Which is why I used the word almost.

 

[Pickman's model]

The fact that the investigation was totally abysmal for the reasons Spiney Norman has outlined makes it far worse again.

you're very keen on your 'facts' aren't you?

 

[Pickman's model]

Which is why I used the word almost.

but it's not a fucking fact you thick twat.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

Farcical. You're convinced of your alternative version of events. Going to the police doesn't stop another rape from happening, unless you want low probability to mean certainty. People's vigilance and self-defence about Delta after the first allegations stop it as much as "the police" do.

I'd say this is farcial. What are the SWP gonna do, send out patrols to follow him round? Of course going to the police won't stop another rape from happening, but it's got a lot more chance than withdrawing a membership card.

 

[SpineyNorman]

DU you still haven't commented on the fact that a guilty verdict by the SWP would almost certainly have resulted in a police investigation.

I think this is a fair question. There's loads of contributions on this thread that rely on hypotheticals and they're not being dismissed.

Do we know what the police would do in that situation though? Can they investigate a rape if the alleged victim doesn't want to press charges? (honest question, I have no idea)

Edit: My personal view is that, even if this was the case, they had no choice but to investigate for fairly obvious reasons.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

I was wondering this. The police can investigate domestic violence even if the victim doesn't want them to, so it would seem bizarre if they couldn't with rape.

 

[Das Uberdog]

i don't think they would ever waste the resources even if they're technically able to by the law, they're conviction oriented

 

[frogwoman]

I'd say this is farcial. What are the SWP gonna do, send out patrols to follow him round? Of course going to the police won't stop another rape from happening, but it's got a lot more chance than withdrawing a membership card.

im not sure about that. statistics show that people are most likely to be raped by somebody they know. in tightly knit left wing organisations it would be easy for a would be rapist to gain access to victims. if he is shunned from that organisation that is gonna mean that the things which meant he could easily rape people (being trusted by the party, knowing that certain "comrades" would have his back if anything did go on, etc) would not be present any more

of course it's not going to stop him raping somebody outside the party, tho, and this farcical investigation has done a lot more harm than good

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

In this case they probably would, if nothing else because the state would use it to discredit the left.

 

[Das Uberdog]

I'd say this is farcial. What are the SWP gonna do, send out patrols to follow him round? Of course going to the police won't stop another rape from happening, but it's got a lot more chance than withdrawing a membership card.

that's not the point, obviously the SWP can't dole out a punishment based on his crime - all they can do is assess whether or not he is suitable for membership of the organisation. it would be unforgivably irresponsible for them not to do that

ETA

and that is the purpose of the investigation, so that the SWP can continue to function - not that it might 'punish' Comrade Delta. such an investigation is actually just logistically necessary in any organisation which both takes such allegations seriously and wishes to be able to move on from them

 

[sihhi]

I agree that there are genuine debates to be had over whether rapes should be charged even if the victims doesn't want to press charges. (I think it's probably right that it's up to the victim - I'd certainly not be in favour of any kind of law that said a victim has to testify if they didn't want to but I realize potential future victims could suffer as a result which is obviously also far from ideal).

This is being argued in the context of some pure anti-rape system in the CPS. Nearly all the evidence shows it doesn't work like that. If the CPS can get a conviction on a 'lesser' charge it will often go for pressing those charges.


Even if you look at its official guidelines

"The planning of an offence indicates a higher level of culpability than an opportunistic or impulsive offence" means that proving a lower offensive act is planned is more worthwhile than in going for a greater but impulsive act.


The mitigating factors mentioned
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/s3_sexual_assault/

"Where the victim is aged 16 or over
Victim engaged in consensual sexual activity with the offender on the same occasion and immediately before the offence"
also change the CPS approach.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

im not sure about that. statistics show that people are most likely to be raped by somebody they know. in tightly knit left wing organisations it would be easy for a would be rapist to gain access to victims. if he is shunned from that organisation that is gonna mean that the things which meant he could easily rape people (being trusted by the party, knowing that certain "comrades" would have his back if anything did go on, etc) would not be present any more

of course it's not going to stop him raping somebody outside the party, tho, and this farcical investigation has done a lot more harm than good

I think you have a point. But it's not hard for people to manipulate people in other situations outside of the SWP.

I have probably gone off on a few tangents I just can't get over the fact that this was all discussed in front of 500 people with the woman standing outside. It's all really sad on a certain level.

 

[kavenism]

I'd say this is farcial. What are the SWP gonna do, send out patrols to follow him round? Of course going to the police won't stop another rape from happening, but it's got a lot more chance than withdrawing a membership card.

As I said it’s about balance, and any outcome of the internal investigation would surely have been seen by many inside and most outside the party as inadequate. In addition there is the very justifiable accusation that the SWP would have been seen equivocating on dealing with rapists. How could they take a stand on the issue in any future struggles if it were known that the best they thought possible under any circumstances was to expel a known rapist from their sect leaving them free to attack others; that they thought the possibility of removing this person from the streets for a while, no matter how inadequate the court system is, simply wasn’t worth considering.

I think it can reasonably be inferred from the transcript that they were happy for their investigation to substitute for a police investigation. If not, why all the back slapping for having a disputes commission in place of “bourgeois justice”. No legitimacy, no credibility. A Toy Town revolutionary tribunal exhibiting absolute self interest and ignoring all other considerations. If the poor woman involved thought this was preferable to going to the Police then I feel doubly sorry for her.

 

[SpineyNorman]

This is being argued in the context of some pure anti-rape system in the CPS. Nearly all the evidence shows it doesn't work like that. If the CPS can get a conviction on a 'lesser' charge it will often go for pressing those charges.


Even if you look at its official guidelines

"The planning of an offence indicates a higher level of culpability than an opportunistic or impulsive offence" means that proving a lower offensive act is planned is more worthwhile than in going for a greater but impulsive act.


The mitigating factors mentioned
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/s3_sexual_assault/

"Where the victim is aged 16 or over
Victim engaged in consensual sexual activity with the offender on the same occasion and immediately before the offence"
also change the CPS approach.

I'm not making any of the assumptions you're projecting onto me though. If the case is investigated, even allowing for all the problems there are with the criminal justice system when applied to cases of rape, there is a chance that the alleged rapist would be locked up. He wouldn't be able to rape any women during his time inside.

As I implied, on balance I think the fact that rapes are not investigated unless the victim wants to press charges is probably for the best - certainly one of the less problematic aspects of British law when it comes to sex crimes. But that doesn't mean it's perfect - there will always be a chance that not prosecuting offers the rapist a chance to reoffend that he wouldn't have had if it had been investigated. I don't think there is a perfect solution to this - sometimes there are no ideal solutions. But just because it's the best solution we have available that doesn't mean we shouldn't point out what its flaws are does it?

 

[sihhi]

I'd say this is farcial. What are the SWP gonna do, send out patrols to follow him round? Of course going to the police won't stop another rape from happening, but it's got a lot more chance than withdrawing a membership card.

It's up to the SWP what they do, but SWP contact - I'd have thought all female SWP contact with him would have been blocked off during his suspension.

Again "the police", what do you think "the police" do that stops rapes? I suppose Op. Motorman helped restored the rule of law and stopped rapes?

Many rape suspects are bailed. In fact immigration suspects are bailed less than rape suspects, don't have the link but was in a Liberty paper report.

Why are organised, disciplined leftists unable to do things such as hunt for witnesses over Delta and sort out procedures - up to them not up to us to decide - against Delta at the same time?

 

[SpineyNorman]

In this case they probably would, if nothing else because the state would use it to discredit the left.

Could they though? Is it legally possible? I was under the impression that rape cases can only be investigated at the say so of the alleged victim. I may be completely wrong though, I'm certainly no expert.

 

[Das Uberdog]

i couldn't see how they could successfully convict someone unless the victim agreed to speak out in court

 

[sihhi]

As I implied, on balance I think the fact that rapes are not investigated unless the victim wants to press charges is probably for the best - certainly one of the less problematic aspects of British law when it comes to sex crimes. But that doesn't mean it's perfect - there will always be a chance that not prosecuting offers the rapist a chance to reoffend that he wouldn't have had if it had been investigated. I don't think there is a perfect solution to this - sometimes there are no ideal solutions. But just because it's the best solution we have available that doesn't mean we shouldn't point out what its flaws are does it?

But because as you say we live in the society we do, bringing a charge of rape can mean the victim is deported or investigated for something else, and nothing happens to the rapist.

 

[Pickman's model]

Op. Motorman

 

[sihhi]

Restablishing "the police" in parts of Belfast.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

SpineyNorman I don't know. It would just seem a bit bizarre if the police could investigate domestic violence with the say so of the victim but not rape. Also one form of domestic violence is rape, so it would presumably get a bit blurred if there are differences.

I have some sympathy with what sihhi is saying, but the fact is that the left can't do forensics, doesn't have prisons, and doesn't have the same level of resources to investigate. I think kavenism's post above is very good.