SWP expulsions and squabbles

[oskarsdrum]

The EC statement: " Following an in-depth investigation the RMT has concluded that there is "no case to answer" against Steve and decided that the union "will not be taking any further action on this matter". "

They are just ratifying the RMT investigation, according to that statement at any rate. they also quote his own blog post as an "explanation of events", and totally ignore hers. Any welfare state worker approaching such a case like this would face disciplinary action, socialists should be able to do better.....

His employer's investigation is a different matter I guess. Employees should get the benefit ofthe doubt, though the employer obviously has to ensure this doesn't mean that women are put at risk (as rightly recognised in the CRB check process, whatever its flaws)

 

[Nigel Irritable]

the SP deserve to be hammered in the same way as the SWP have been for that response, the political issues at stake are almost identical.

That's complete drivel.

The SP was made aware of an allegation against one of its members. It then ascertained that these allegations were being looked into by the appropriate authorities, so it got the hell out of the way until those investigations were complete. In the meantime, the member resigned from the SP. That was all entirely appropriate and has nothing in common with the way in which the SWP handled the Delta issue.

 

[cesare]

The EC statement: " Following an in-depth investigation the RMT has concluded that there is "no case to answer" against Steve and decided that the union "will not be taking any further action on this matter". "

They are just ratifying the RMT investigation, according to that statement at any rate. they also quote his own blog post as an "explanation of events", and totally ignore hers. Any welfare state worker approaching such a case like this would face disciplinary action, socialists should be able to do better.....

His employer's investigation is a different matter I guess. Employees should get the benefit ofthe doubt, though the employer obviously has to ensure this doesn't mean that women are put at risk (as rightly recognised in the CRB check process, whatever its flaws)

Without any disclaimer to the contrary, it does rather look as though they're saying that the RMT's looked into it so that's an end to the matter. Maybe I'm reading it wrongly.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

So they're not in a position to ratify the RMT's decision.

What does "ratify the RMT's decision" mean here? The SP does not function as some kind of appellate tribunal for union disciplinary decisions.

 

[cesare]

What does "ratify the RMT's decision" even mean here? Believe it or not, the SP does not function as some kind of appellate tribunal for union disciplinary decisions.

It means an express or implied approval of the RMT's decision. I don't know whether they approve or not - do you?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

It means an express or implied approval of the RMT's decision. I don't know whether they approve or not - do you?

I'm not sure that "approval" is the issue. It's rather whether those who do actually interact with the RMT accept its decision in the absence of strong evidence that its procedures are fundamentally flawed (at least at this moment).

 

[dennisr]

Without any disclaimer to the contrary, it does rather look as though they're saying that the RMT's looked into it so that's an end to the matter. Maybe I'm reading it wrongly.

The thing is they could not really do much else about it. My guess is that Steve would have been asked to stand down from his position as a member of the SP. He is not rejoining anytime soon - I do not know if that is his decesion, the SPs or both. He is not be put in or elevated to any position in the SP - far from it. The statement is not a eulogy to Steve's innocence (or otherwise) - it is carefully worded to say that the SP recognises that the type of thing Steve's state does happen - but that the vast majority of cases are of violence against women and that the victim should be given strong sympathy in any hearing. It is not standing in judgement one way or the other. How else could the SP stand - they cannot demand further investigation or that he must be guilty or innocent.

On the RMT investigation the statement sauys: "Some have attempted to raise doubts about the RMT's investigation, but no flaws have been drawn to our attention." Again i cannot see what else they can say in the circumstances but i don't think this is some ringing endorsement one way or the other.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

To put the question more broadly, and moving away from any specific case: Are people here arguing not only for a presumption of guilt in cases of sexual assault or domestic violence, but for a presumption of guilt so strong that it is for all intents and purposes an incontrovertible finding of guilt?

 

[articul8]

I recognise its a very difficult issue for the SP to have to deal with. But his "explanation" makes a number of statements about her mental health that it has no reason to believe are true. The implication of the statement is that he was fully exonerated by the police investigation (not necessarily the case) and that the rmt investigation means he has no case to answer, as though his status in the union could have had no bearing on that outcome.

Agree this doesn't put them in same category as SWP, it doesn't seem satisfactory

 

[oskarsdrum]

oskarsdrum said: ↑

the SP deserve to be hammered in the same way as the SWP have been for that response, the political issues at stake are almost identical.​

That's complete drivel.

The SP was made aware of an allegation against one of its members. It then ascertained that these allegations were being looked into by the appropriate authorities, so it got the hell out of the way until those investigations were complete. In the meantime, the member resigned from the SP. That was all entirely appropriate and has nothing in common with the way in which the SWP handled the Delta issue.

Alright - they started out better. I strongly hoped that'd be the end of the matter. But this statement takes them straight back into Callinicos territory, for all the reasons I mentioned. (the discredit to the SP is also a little less, perhaps, since the agreed facts of the Delta relationship show it to be highly inappropriate at the very least)

As for appropriate authorities, the lack of a punitive response response from the following:

a) the Police
b) the accused's employer

Is not in any way grounds for rehabilitation into a socialist political organisation in and of itself. Quite possibly, authorities a) and b) are correct to take no action, because as I noted above, the balance of risk can justifiably be towards the accused in such a case. A voluntary membership organisation is a different matter altogether. Here, for socialists, "beyond all reasonable doubt" is the standard of proof needed to allow the accused to continue a leading party role: because, anything else means that sometimes women who have been abused will be forced to see their abuser "exonerated"; and, worse still, because anything else contributes to a structure that shelters abusers. Institutional practice is a huge factor in abuse of oppressed groups.

If an innocent (but unprovably so) man has to leave a party because prevention of abuse is prioritized above everything else, well, of course, that's a disaster individually for him and a sad loss to the party. It's not impossible for that to happen to me personally! But that's the price of women's oppression in cases of irreconcilable uncertainty. It's not a reason to put women at risk of abuse compounded by humiliation.

Now, I don't know the facts of the case, but the above seems very relevant to the clear failings of the EC statement.

 

[dennisr]

Agree this doesn't put them in same category as SWP, it doesn't seem satisfactory

My guess is the SP don't think this is a satisfactory conclusion one way or the other - the careful wording of the statement is not an endorsement one way or the other.
They are definately not cheerleading Steve at a rally. They are not even saying he can become a member of the SP. For some to argue, as osker has, that this means they should be bought to book in the manner the SWP (rightly...) has been is, to put it mildly, foolish.

The SWP leadership felt it could stand as judge and jury on a case that was even more serious than this one. it felt it could then demand loyalty - in the form of uncritical support for the resulting decision those 'leaders' made. The SP do not. it is an entirely different situation.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Alright - they started out better.

That was the sum total of their relevant conduct, ie their conduct regarding an allegation during the period when the subject of that allegation was one of their members.

Is not in any way grounds for rehabilitation into a socialist political organisation in and of itself...

All of this seems to be written in the belief that the subject of the allegation has rejoined the Socialist Party. As I understand it, he has not.

 

[articul8]

I don't know - the way it was tweeted suggested Steve had been vindicated. I am not saying only a guilty verdict would have been satisfactory. But linking to his statement as though it is the most plausible account seems to beg a lot of questions

 

[dennisr]

For your information oskar. I am the person who bought the allegations made against Steve to the SP leaderships attention after it was bought to mine by friends on these boards. This was far from easy for me personally having a close past political relationship with Steve - we have risked a fuck of a lot together doing anti-fascist work - and he is a fella I trusted and relied upon totally at that time. I put great trust in him - and have the utmost respect for the individual I knew. More importantly he put his trust in me. Frankly, when we have risked such things together - it makes me feel like a fecking traitor and a grass to treat an individual who trusted me the way I had to (no matter how irrational that may sound to you if you haven;t been through the stuff we did together...). So to be very direct - when you put yourself and - much worse - one of your good comrades - in the position I felt I had to put him in - then you can get all high and feckin mighty about it.

Yes, of course the SP takes such allegations and the potential risk of abuse to women seriously. That's what we do - not choosing the easy option.

 

[Delroy Booth]

It gives the impression they're acknowledging his version of events as implicitly right by linking his statement up there on the official website with no sort of qualifier, even if the what they're saying is reasonable. I don't think it's satisfactory either articul8, but at this point there's no way this will end up satisfactory for anyone concerned.

And I know its hard to break the habits of a lifetime, but making it a competition between the SP and SWP about who did best/worst seems a bit wrong to me at this point.

 

[oskarsdrum]

Nigel Irritable said:

To put the question more broadly, and moving away from any specific case: Are people here arguing not only for a presumption of guilt in cases of sexual assault or domestic violence, but for a presumption of guilt so strong that it is for all intents and purposes an incontrovertible finding of guilt?

​

Well, almost incontrovertible in many cases, in practise, yes. There should be some basic investigation into the plausibility of any accusation - e.g. is there an overwhelmingly evidenced alibi, for example, or is there any other evidence that could give near 100% certainty that the accusation is false. Otherwise, if we still have to ask ourselves this question, then we've a lot to learn from how the women's movement has transformed the welfare state over the last 30 years (in Britain that is, I don't know to what extent that's true anywhere else). Given the fundamental indeterminacy of many cases, a political analysis is a sound guide:

a) the number of false claims of abuse by women is extremely low;
b) the risk of injustice to an individual man is - though not insignificant - far less than the risk to women as a whole whilst sexist violence remains a significant part of women's oppression.

I guess the potential danger of this is to allow any authority/group with a bit of wherewithall to put forward a plausible false complaint and bring down any individual man. However, I don't see how that can be avoided, without giving abusive men a get-out for any situation. The same goes for custody of children, right to live in a shared tenancy, right to be a children's social worker etc. etc., after a credible (but unprovable) allegation is made. How could it be otherwise?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

​

Well, almost incontrovertible in many cases, in practise, yes. There should be some basic investigation into the plausibility of any accusation - e.g. is there an overwhelmingly evidenced alibi, for example, or is there any other evidence that could give near 100% certainty that the accusation is false.

Just to be clear here: Are you advocating that the criminal justice system should take this approach?

 

[dennisr]

Think about what you are advocating oskar

 

[articul8]

It gives the impression they're acknowledging his version of events as implicitly right by linking his statement up there on the official website with no sort of qualifier, even if the what they're saying is reasonable. I don't think it's satisfactory either articul8, but at this point there's no way this will end up satisfactory for anyone concerned..

Yes, I think best would have been to say that events are subject to conflicting interpretations - link to both statements, and stick to factual report of investigation outcomes without suggesting matter is settled

 

[Fedayn]

My guess is the SP don't think this is a satisfactory conclusion one way or the other - the careful wording of the statement is not an endorsement one way or the other.
They are definately not cheerleading Steve at a rally. They are not even saying he can become a member of the SP. For some to argue, as osker has, that this means they should be bought to book in the manner the SWP (rightly...) has been is, to put it mildly, foolish.

The SWP leadership felt it could stand as judge and jury on a case that was even more serious than this one. it felt it could then demand loyalty - in the form of uncritical support for the resulting decision int made The SP do not. it is an entirely different situation.

I think it misses a few things. Steve Hedley was never acquitted or cleared. That the SP seem to think the RMT is qualified to judge the issue is a weird one. What is the basis for this belief? Contrary to Hedleys claims he was never cleared/acquitted/vindicated or whatever word he chose to use. He was never charged, which makes his claims rather fanciful. However what it does do is leave all sorts of room for conjecture, accusation, leaping and the like. It's neither satisfactory for victim or perpetrator whoever that may be.

I think it is true to say that Hedley is now 'damaged goods' (sorry for the bad choice of words but you get my drift). The accusations are still there, the physical evidence is still visible in the photos. It's a rather grubby denouement that serves no-one well.

As an aside the TUSC facebook charge posted Hedleys statement then started deleting posts commenting on it here. Then they removed Hedleys statement. That they first deleted critical comments also doesn't look good.

No-one comes out of this well.

 

[Fedayn]

Frankly, when we have risked such things together - it makes me feel like a fecking traitor and a grass to treat an individual who trusted me the way I had to (no matter how irrational that may sound to you if you haven;t been through the stuff we did together...).

No it doesn't (but I get what you're saying), it makes you a principled individual who did what anyone with socialist principals should have done. I've known you personally for near 20 years, we've risked a lot together, you are no traitor.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Did you used to paper sales at the Brunswick Centre in the early to mid 90s?

yessiree

 

[bolshiebhoy]

me and Judith Orr and Martin smith ofttimes as it goes.

Steven Rose never bought one!

 

[bolshiebhoy]

To put the question more broadly, and moving away from any specific case: Are people here arguing not only for a presumption of guilt in cases of sexual assault or domestic violence, but for a presumption of guilt so strong that it is for all intents and purposes an incontrovertible finding of guilt?

Some of my erstwhile factional comrades in the SWP are. don't agree with it myself but there is that mood abroad sir.

 

[oskarsdrum]

dennisr - well, that's clearly a very admirable and principled action which must have been extremely difficult. Many people I'm sure would have kept their head in the sand and hoped it'd go away instead (who knows, myself included, it's possible). On the wider issue, I've spelled out the implications of what I'm proposing very transparently, what do you disagree with?

Nigel - no no no, sorry if I wasn't clear: the standards for criminal investigations are very different. They're different again for employer investigations, and for civil measures such as harrassment and residency exclusion orders. There's a good reason for this, which is that the sanctions and therefore the risks in inevitable cases of error (given the inescapably limited information) are varied. We could think of it as a cascading set of negative outcomes for a man who is wrongly accused, but unprovably so:

- criminal - go to prison
- joint tenancy - made homeless (though of course, should be rehoused, but won't always be)
- employer - lose livelihood
- political party - lose some social networks, credibility....

Therefore, the evidence needed to implement a sanction decreases, until the balance of risk is on the side of believing the woman in all but the best evidenced cases (political party at the bottom).

I've yet to read a thorough defence of any alternative, particularly one that takes seriously the institutional factors in perpetuating abuse, but I'm not ruling out the possibility if anyone can point me in the direction of an alternative...?

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Christ this SP stuff is going viral now. is that fair?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Christ this SP stuff is going viral now. is that fair?

Entirely predictable that it would do the rounds, particularly in SWP oppositionist circles.

 

[frogwoman]

No it doesn't (but I get what you're saying), it makes you a principled individual who did what anyone with socialist principals should have done. I've known you personally for near 20 years, we've risked a lot together, you are no traitor.

yep.

 

[oskarsdrum]

Entirely predictable that it would do the rounds, particularly in SWP oppositionist circles.

I do detect some hangover from swp anti-SP sectarianism in some comments that have been made. However in general group affilliation s a wholly separate matter to improving our responses to such extraordinarily difficult and serious matters and I doubt it's helpful to conflate the two.

edit - conflate's not the right word, rather I just mean they should be kept separate, sorry....

 

[Nigel Irritable]

edit - conflate's not the right word, rather I just mean they should be kept separate, sorry....

I agree. I wasn't actually pointing out the sectarian edge you note. I was pointing out where some rather heated discussion of it would inevitably come from given recent events.