Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

SWP expulsions and squabbles

But the point is if they weren't sure a long friendship might well sway them towards giving the benefit of the doubt. I think you have too much faith in them not doing that as if being in the SWP gives you super powers. Anyone would be affected by this.
You could well be right. And of course the initial reaction will be tainted by personal feelings. I know I laughed out loud when I read this guy had been accused of this shit. Just didn't compute with what I'd seen of him up close admittedly many years ago. But having read it all now I think there probably is a case to answer on the sexual harassment front. And I wouldn't underestimate the injured feelings of a Leninist who thinks a mate has let down the side. There's a reason Lenin always quoted Cromwell and Robespierre as examples of revolutionary morality. There is a certain puritanical streak in Leninism and a willingness to hear the worst about your closest comrades, part of the reason they're such factional, civil war prone buggers. And trots are worse in that respect.
 
You could well be right. And of course the initial reaction will be tainted by personal feelings. I know I laughed out loud when I read this guy had been accused of this shit. Just didn't compute with what I'd seen of him up close admittedly many years ago. But having read it all now I think there probably is a case to answer on the sexual harassment front. And I wouldn't underestimate the injured feelings of a Leninist who thinks a mate has let down the side. There's a reason Lenin always quoted Cromwell and Robespierre as examples of revolutionary morality. There is a certain puritanical streak in Leninism and a willingness to hear the worst about your closest comrades, part of the reason they're such factional, civil war prone buggers. And trots are worse in that respect.

But the focus shouldn't be on whether on not he let the side down. This shouldn't be about the party; it should be about whether or not he raped her.
 
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.
The accused was not present at the conference.
 
But the focus shouldn't be on whether on not he let the side down. This shouldn't be about the party; it should be about whether or not he raped her.
That was. Apparently leading SWP members are less likely to have a background empathy, sympathy or be effected by the usual matrix of affectional or other networks of power relating to their long term personal mate, so having 7 mates of his is actually - if you look at it right - a sign of their critical integrity. Anything else, a failing.
 
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?
DU, I disagree with virtually everything you have written on this subject, but I would feel a little less that you were a mysogenistic cunt mascarading as a revolutionary if you stopped referring to the woman who made this complaint as "the girl".
 
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?
According to the transcript she decided to make the complaint following the Assange situation as the position the SWP took gave her confidence that her complaint would be taken seriously.
 
According to the transcript she decided to make the complaint following the Assange situation as the position the SWP took gave her confidence that her complaint would be taken seriously.
And it goes to suggest that she now doesn't feel like it was - as i read it anyway.

The hearing as you’ve heard concerned an accusation of rape, an incredibly serious accusation which we think the committee did take very seriously, and Candy mentioned the fact that the woman had come forward a few years previously at a conference. And the CC did handle the case in the way that she asked them to. But I think it’s important to say that she felt she could come forward two years later because she – as she explained it to me when she rang me up and asked me to give evidence on her behalf – she felt able to actually confront the issues that she’d gone through and actually say that she felt she had been raped. She felt the way the party had handled the Assange case gave her confidence that she would get a fair hearing.

Unfortunately, although Candy’s put a very clear picture of the case, it wasn’t her experience that it went well. She’s incredibly traumatised by the hearing, and I think it’s fair to say that the witnesses are incredibly shocked by some of the things that took place.
 
That was. Apparently leading SWP members are less likely to have a background empathy, sympathy or be effected by the usual matrix of affectional or other networks of power relating to their long term personal mate, so having 7 mates of his is actually - if you look at it right - a sign of their critical integrity. Anything else, a failing.
I have nothing but admiration for their super-human abilities to isolate their subconsciousnesses from their razor-like analysis of the facts.
 
[ quote="bolshiebhoy, post: 11867025, member: 4331"]'explosion'

Not even the cc can arrange that surely :)[/quote]
Typing an a tablet with predictive text when dyslexic is not always a wise thing to do. :)
Of course if bothered to read the post before pressing send...
 
According to the transcript she decided to make the complaint following the Assange situation as the position the SWP took gave her confidence that her complaint would be taken seriously.

Is that all the complaints or just the rape? I read somewhere (might even have been on here) that the rape allegation was new but that there had been harassment claims a couple of years ago?
 
DU, I disagree with virtually everything you have written on this subject, but I would feel a little less that you were a mysogenistic cunt mascarading as a revolutionary if you stopped referring to the woman who made this complaint as "the girl".

who are you you fucking bell end?
 
Oh OK - I took it from a few of the posts on here that he had been - can't be bothered to check back though, might just have been me misreading it
No you are right it has been said before on the thread that he was at conference, I didn't think that was not the case but didn't say anything as I was not sure, but had it confirmed tonight.
 
Is that all the complaints or just the rape? I read somewhere (might even have been on here) that the rape allegation was new but that there had been harassment claims a couple of years ago?

Yeah I first heard about it back in late 2010 from a Counterfire member. Young Woman, Manchester, Comrade Perry banned from operating there. I was berated by several SWP members for even considering it a possibility.
 
Is that all the complaints or just the rape? I read somewhere (might even have been on here) that the rape allegation was new but that there had been harassment claims a couple of years ago?
I think she had made an 'informal' complaint previously.
 
I guess there's several ways that could be interpreted.
This is from the transcript


We noted that the complaint concerned incidents that had taken place over a period of about six months in 2008 and 2009, which was three or four years before we met. We also noted that there had been an informal complaint about these incidents from the same woman in July 2010, which hadn’t come to the disputes committee, and at that time she complained of sexual harassment rather than of rape.
We were clear that there were a number of reasons why it might take a period of time for a woman to come forward with a complaint like this. And we also understood that there was a process whereby the woman might change how she perceived these incidents, which W now described to us as an issue of rape. We therefore agreed it was essential to investigate the complaint that was in front of us.
We looked at how the complaint was handled in 2010. She’d raised concerns of harassment, about these same incidents, with the central committee. Central committee members had met with Comrade Delta, who denied them. And at that time W was asked if she wanted to go to the disputes committee, but she confirmed that she didn’t want to do that. She wanted an apology, for her views to be recognised, and for the CC to be made aware of them. An informal resolution was reached which was agreed and accepted by W.
 
Incidentally, it has been said several times on this thread that someone stood down from the disputes committee because they knew W but that does not seem to be the case, I can't see any mention of it in the transcript.
 
It has occurred to me that those who supported the DC report and who shouted liar at people. Would have been the most ardent opponents of Delta if the CC had taken a line against him. These are people who are incapable of any independent thought who are totally and passionately committed to whatever line the CC gives them, even if it was different the day before. And with the possible exception of Stack it is people like this who made up the DC.
 
Back
Top Bottom