Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

SWP expulsions and squabbles

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.
Sorry, not sure what your point is here.
 
By the way sihhi I don't have any time for the police or the justice system in this country (or any country I can think of). But that is what is in place, and has to be used at times. Their record on rape is appalling. But I would still rather see a rapist banged up than on the streets, as that is the only real option. The working class in the UK is atomised and our organisations weak. Hopefully that will change, but in the meantime I can't see what other option there is. I would feel deeply uncomfortable with my union branch investigating a rape case, and an AGM discussing it given the current situation. And I would feel the same if I was in a left organisation.
 
Sorry, not sure what your point is here.

The point is there might be a raft of reasons why statements are not given to the police about sexual violence. It's not for us to judge unlike the thrust of OSS's approach: 'police have forensics, they're better'.
 
By the way sihhi I don't have any time for the police or the justice system in this country (or any country I can think of). But that is what is in place, and has to be used at times. Their record on rape is appalling. But I would still rather see a rapist banged up than on the streets, as that is the only real option. The working class in the UK is atomised and our organisations weak. Hopefully that will change, but in the meantime I can't see what other option there is. I would feel deeply uncomfortable with my union branch investigating a rape case, and an AGM discussing it given the current situation. And I would feel the same if I was in a left organisation.

Finally we get to it "at times" and neither me, you nor anyone else on this thread can judge in this instance.
 
The point is there might be a raft of reasons why statements are not given to the police about sexual violence. It's not for us to judge unlike the thrust of OSS's approach: 'police have forensics, they're better'.

I think you are totally simplifying and caricaturing what I'm saying though.

But you are right that in such circumstances it might well make it impossible.
 
yes, i know what it was (and it was in derry too): i don't really believe that there was anything to do with rapes in it.

It's the police being allowed back into those areas the whole "We don’t intend to let part of the United Kingdom default from the rule of law" angle
 
Finally we get to it "at times" and neither me, you nor anyone else on this thread can judge in this instance.

In a sense you are right. But basically I don't trust the SWP to have handled this investigation, or to have done right by the woman, or to have encouraged her to go to the police if it was appropriate (which in the majority of cases I would think could be the best option, but as you say there are exceptions). Not because they are twisted people but because the organisation has become little better than a semi-cult.

Reading about Operation Motorman on Wikipedia now.
 
The point is there might be a raft of reasons why statements are not given to the police about sexual violence. It's not for us to judge unlike the thrust of OSS's approach: 'police have forensics, they're better'.

Oh right, I agree then. All I'm saying is that having the police investigate a rape certainly could prevent future rapes from happening. It's not a subject I've spent much time thinking about really but I think it's best that the victim gets the final say. But it's still troubling for me that this could mean an attacker who would otherwise be in jail is able to rape again. But that's less troubling than the idea of victims being forced to testify against their will.

What I'm struggling to say is that it's the least flawed of the possible systems I can think of but I still find the flaws troubling.
 
In a sense you are right. But basically I don't trust the SWP to have handled this investigation, or to have done right by the woman, or to have encouraged her to go to the police if it was appropriate (which in the majority of cases I would think could be the best option, but as you say there are exceptions). Not because they are twisted people but because the organisation has become little better than a semi-cult.

Reading about Operation Motorman on Wikipedia now.

It's OK you don't have to read about it, that was more in silly anger, for I while I think I got the wrong end of what you were saying, and saying it was police or bust, which you're not.
 
When I was a lot younger one of my best mates in the party was expelled from the SWP over a charge of rape. I know for a fact that the experienced comrades who sat in judgement at that time made it their business to make sure that the woman involved knew all her legal options, including going to the police before during and after the party's ruling on her claim. It was her choice and her's alone whether to go to the police and she didn't, largely because she'd had sex with the guy before the rape and wasn't prepared to subject herself to the inevitable police nastiness on that front. She couldnt have had more support from the party. He was told in no uncertain terms never to go near her again, never to go near anyone in the party again. In fact I never saw him again or even spoke to him cause he felt so isolated he went back home to the country he was from. if the woman had gone to the police she'd have been totally within her rights and maybe she should have for the benefit of other women, I don't know, that's a huge dilemma. What I do know is that the party handled it exactly as it should have been. And at least some of the people involved were involved in judging this dispute. Unless they've undergone some massive transformation in the intervening years I'm inclined to believe they approached this case in the same spirit.

Now the huge difference here people say is the fact the bloke is a cc member and not just any cc member. But even allowing for that I'm totally convinced that if the likes of Pat and Candy thought he was guilty of rape they would have said so. yes they know him well, value him etc. But their whole reason for being the committed lifelong socialist revolutionaries they are would be totally undone if they had knowingly let this one slide. I just can't see that happening. But equally what Pat said about the woman not being taken seriously enough initially or people in positions of power seeing her as a problem with some agenda against the party because of her accusations now that is something that anyone in the SWP should be worried about. So is the fact that Pat, who has heard the facts when we haven't, believed the balance of probability was that she had been harassed by the guy concerned. If I was still in the party that would keep me awake at night.
 
BB your first paragraph is very good and moving. The dilemma of whether a woman should go to the police to protect other women, is often a heartbreaking and difficult one. I know from people I know who are very close to me. The trauma means some women can't, and then the terrible thing is they then feel guilt for not doing so. But I have to say if I could potentially prevent a rapist by going to the police, I think I may do it even if a woman didn't want me to. But that is an extremely hard moral dilemma, and I don't know what I'd do for sure.

What you say about the panel members may be true but it doesn't take away from the point that people who knew him should not have been on a panel, it is totally wrong. And there is something deeply wrong about 500 people discussing it while the alleged rape victim stands outside, and while people inside clap different points of view, it's disturbing. I also agree about the points you make about Pat (but obviously don't know him).
 
Now the huge difference here people say is the fact the bloke is a cc member and not just any cc member. But even allowing for that I'm totally convinced that if the likes of Pat and Candy thought he was guilty of rape they would have said so. yes they know him well, value him etc. But their whole reason for being the committed lifelong socialist revolutionaries they are would be totally undone if they had knowingly let this one slide. I just can't see that happening. But equally what Pat said about the woman not being taken seriously enough initially or people in positions of power seeing her as a problem with some agenda against the party because of her accusations now that is something that anyone in the SWP should be worried about. So is the fact that Pat, who has heard the facts when we haven't, believed the balance of probability was that she had been harassed by the guy concerned. If I was still in the party that would keep me awake at night.

You do agree that they shouldn't be needing to "allow for that".
 
On a side note. One of my FB friends who is in one of the factions has just deactivated his FB account, having previously deleted all posts that referred to the conference. Hope that's not something he was forced to do.
 
BB your first paragraph is very good and moving. The dilemma of whether a woman should go to the police to protect other women, is often a heartbreaking and difficult one. I know from people I know who are very close to me. The trauma means some women can't, and then the terrible thing is they then feel guilt for not doing so. But I have to say if I could potentially prevent a rapist by going to the police, I think I may do it even if a woman didn't want me to. But that is an extremely hard moral dilemma, and I don't know what I'd do for sure.

What you say about the panel members may be true but it doesn't take away from the point that people who knew him should not have been on a panel, it is totally wrong. And there is something deeply wrong about 500 people discussing it while the alleged rape victim stands outside, and while people inside clap different points of view, it's disturbing. I also agree about the points you make about Pat (but obviously don't know him).
Surely it's ultimately her decision not yours?

The debate wasn't about the guilt or otherwise of the guy, it was about the process followed by the DC and whether the party's consitution had been followed correctly. party delegates had a right to vote on that, harsh as it may sound unless W was a delegate she had no right to attend.
 
It's all been very weird round here. People who are usually quite cynical about the leadership talking like party hacks. I suspect a message of some kind has been sent out. But surely they wouldn't get away with telling people to delete their facebook accounts and stuff? If I was told to do that they'd soon be having my membership card surgically removed from a very sensitive part of their anatomy.
 
You do agree that they shouldn't be needing to "allow for that".
The only way to do that would be to have some body outside the SWP decide if a party member was guilty of behaviour that would exclude him from membership. There is a very compelling argument to me at least which says only a party body should decide that.
 
harsh as it may sound unless W was a delegate she had no right to attend.

It does sound harsh yes, very harsh. Under normal circumstances sure but this was a bit out of the ordinary to say the least. And even with that being the case I think it would have come across a bit better if the accused wasn't in the room either.
 
It's all been very weird round here. People who are usually quite cynical about the leadership talking like party hacks. I suspect a message of some kind has been sent out. But surely they wouldn't get away with telling people to delete their facebook accounts and stuff? If I was told to do that they'd soon be having my membership card surgically removed from a very sensitive part of their anatomy.
You think? not so sure. Back in the early days of the Internet and the SWP having a relationship a group,of us were told to stop contributing to an online group. me and my mates did within hours. Argued our case at the next branch meeting but did it nonetheless. never underestimate the power of democratic centralism on the mind of a trotskyist and the constant invoking of the Paul Levi case. You can be right but if you're against the party you're still wrong! There was a time Imwould have defended that position all night long!
 
The only way to do that would be to have some body outside the SWP decide if a party member was guilty of behaviour that would exclude him from membership. There is a very compelling argument to me at least which says only a party body should decide that.
No, it says that there is an argument for an external body or external embers to be involved in the investigation process at least. Stop imagining that the self-selected 7 man DC body of the SWP is a proletarian court of honour. It's not and it spits blood on such past bodies that have come out of periods of struggle to suggest that is it. Which is precisely what this ridiculous attempt at polarisation (police or this, liberals or revolutionaries) rests on.
 
You think? not so sure. Back in the early days of the Internet and the SWP having a relationship a group,of us were told to stop contributing to an online group. me and my mates did within hours. Argued our case at the next branch meeting but did it nonetheless. never underestimate the power of democratic centralism on the mind of a trotskyist and the constant invoking of the Paul Levi case. You can be right but if you're against the party you're still wrong! There was a time Imwould have defended that position all night long!
An example for every case eh comrade :rolleyes:
 
It does sound harsh yes, very harsh. Under normal circumstances sure but this was a bit out of the ordinary to say the least. And even with that being the case I think it would have come across a bit better if the accused wasn't in the room either.
He's either disciplined or he's not. if not then as long as he's an accredited delegate he has to be in the room. The constitution is enforced or it's not worth having.
 
You think? not so sure. Back in the early days of the Internet and the SWP having a relationship a group,of us were told to stop contributing to an online group. me and my mates did within hours. Argued our case at the next branch meeting but did it nonetheless. never underestimate the power of democratic centralism on the mind of a trotskyist and the constant invoking of the Paul Levi case. You can be right but if you're against the party you're still wrong! There was a time Imwould have defended that position all night long!

I don't think I'd even be able to take them seriously if someone high up in the SP told me to do that.
 
No, it says that there is an argument for an external body or external embers to be involved in the investigation process at least. Stop imagining that the self-selected 7 man DC body of the SWP is a proletarian court of honour. It's not and it spits blood on such past bodies that have come out of periods of struggle to suggest that is it. Which is precisely what this ridiculous attempt at polarisation (police or this, liberals or revolutionaries) rests on.
For what it's worth when I said frightened liberals I didn't include you butchers, has been clear from your comments so far that your position is more nuanced than that. And I can see the argument for an external, independent group of people being involved. I honestly can. But I'm not sure it would possible in practice to find truely independent people.
 
There's no such thing as truly independent people. But there are people who are more independent than 'Comrade Delta's' mates.

Got to admit I'd not really paid any attention to this before now so can anyone explain why it's taken this long? Did it not get reported or was the some botched attempt at a cover-up or something?
 
I'm afraid the SWP have gone through a massive transformation and that explains why they approached a rape complaint by a woman comrade as if it was a put up job to try to discredit a CC member.

They are so riven by factionalism that they did everything they could to dissuade her from taking the complaint forward when she first made it 3 years ago. The CC were involved in the whole Counterfire/Left platform debate and they couldnt afford for their side to be weakened by allegations of sexual assault.

If the allegations had been against any of the males who subsequently left the CC after that, the cynic in me believes that they would have been dealt with much more severly than Comrade Delta appears to have been. (as indeed they should have been if there was evidence of abuse)
 
Back
Top Bottom