bolshiebhoy
socialism leinster drink
Do we need a separate thread or is this one not going to run?
SWP expulsions and squabbles
- Thread starter Nigel Irritable
- Start date
oskarsdrum
Active Member
Hmm - that's a good point! That very probably heightened the emotional aspect of my own response (though I'm sticking with the general position I set out, for better or worse).
oskarsdrum
Active Member
Think this is a kind of afterward, your dramatic recent statement provided a fitting conclusion to the main business of the thread bb. Though I'm personally hoping for a picture of Mrs bb posing, like Tsipras, with the Independent Greeks
muscovyduck
Good IT skills and food hygiene competent
I really don't like how that article's been written. "Steve felt" "Some have attempted to raise doubts" and that second last paragraph. The SP started off dealing with this well but it's an important issue and it deserved a slightly more in depth explaination, particularly since they've linked to one blog post but not the other.
People will raise the issue at branch meetings and so on though. I hope.
People will raise the issue at branch meetings and so on though. I hope.
tenniselbow
Active Member
The comparison with the handling of the Delta case is silly.
But oskarsdrum is right to say the statement from the EC is deeply troubling. Basically it reads as a press release from the accused's own camp: the line about male victims of domestic violence; that he "would clearly have preferred not to have gone public"; the link to the accusatory blog detailing the complainant's mental health issues etc. This seems like a very misjudged move by the SP.
bolshiebhoy
socialism leinster drink
Why would they make such a stupid move when things were to all intents and purposes done and dusted?
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
Yes, I don't really understand the need for a statement *at all*.
For me the most worrying line is the last one "The Socialist Party will continue to work with Steve on the urgent task of building a mass movement against austerity." because surely that should depend entirely on the issue being settled, and him being unequivocally cleared of any wrongdoing, first? As far as I'm concerned that hasn't happened. It's a bit puzzling really - if he has "no case to answer" based on the results of the RMT's investigation, as the Socialist Party would appear to be suggesting by using it in the headline for the article, then why was it necessary for him to leave the party in the first place? If it is that clear-cut then why the resignation statement? It's worth pointing out that even though Steve Hedley was only a member of the SP for a very brief period formally, he was a key person in helping them set up the National Shop Stewards Network anti-cuts thing, so it's not as simple as that.
I don't either. It makes no sense.
muscovyduck
Good IT skills and food hygiene competent
I was going to list probably reasons and then say something about how once you start adding up loads of small reasons for doing something it becomes important to do it but then I can't actually see what problems there were. Perhaps it was just to get the word out there that it was more complicated than it looked, but then why not explain it properly? Was it intentional for there to be no link to the woman's blog?
tenniselbow
Active Member
Presumably his role in the NSSN and his likely rehabilitation within the RMT are part of the answer to BB's very sensible question above? Even if he still remains outside the organization, as Nigel suggests, this would seem like the political motivation for this ill-judged intervention, unless someone can correct me?
tenniselbow
Active Member
To clarify, it seems likely he will continue to play a key role in NSSN and RMT, given the latter's findings and statement, and therefore the SP have an interest in a continued productive relationship.
Even on these terms, though, the statement seems unnecessary and mistaken to me.
Even on these terms, though, the statement seems unnecessary and mistaken to me.
muscovyduck
Good IT skills and food hygiene competent
Maybe it's because they're having to deal with it a lot more often than everyone else, and they probably became somewhat detatched from what everyone else though about it. No one's going to congratulate you on every well balanced article you write but they will complain (and rightly so) when something's off. So in this case they might have not realised that most people were like "Well, that's that then".
But then alarm bells start ringing if they thought it wasn't obvious that most people wanted it to be left alone. Surely they'd just... know or ask other people or something?
But then alarm bells start ringing if they thought it wasn't obvious that most people wanted it to be left alone. Surely they'd just... know or ask other people or something?
oskarsdrum
Active Member
It's all the more perplexing if he's not making a return to the party. Why comment at all, what more was needed beyond the resignation statement? His statement is bang out of order anyway, the RMT should have made sure he stuck to a simple, factual refutation and not something with an appearance of vindictive retaliation. Can't understand how institutions of the left are getting this stuff so wrong really. Even if only from the viewpoint of protecting their own reputations!
tenniselbow
Active Member
It's bewildering. Especially once you read that blog. Whoever thought it was appropriate to link to that vitriolic diatribe (irrespective of its possible truth-value) needs to sit down and have a long, hard think.
One_Stop_Shop
Well-Known Member
In the midst of all the depressing stuff that has gone on in the left, it's this kind of thing that gives you a bit of hope. It must have been very difficult, even if the right thing to do.
sihhi
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered
I think the statement by the SP is an unbalanced one, since it links only to the male account not to the female account.
This is odd too, it feels as if the SP are hiding information from their readership - might not be the case - "Some have attempted to raise doubts about the RMT's investigation, but no flaws have been drawn to our attention."
I have no means to comment any further.
This is odd too, it feels as if the SP are hiding information from their readership - might not be the case - "Some have attempted to raise doubts about the RMT's investigation, but no flaws have been drawn to our attention."
I have no means to comment any further.
oskarsdrum
Active Member
Re-reading the EC statement. The only justification for the tone of the piece, and for linking to such a posting by someone subject to such accusations (bold paragraph for emphasis too!), is that they're utterly and 100% convinced that he's innocent. And therefore, presumably, the victim of a cruel slur: and if that's what they think then they should say so. But the lack of such a stand suggests instead a confused compromise between an instinct that their comrade is innocent, and a knowledge that it's impossible to prove it.
Humanly of course, that's a very understandable reaction, but according weight to such instincts is the product of an extremely poor understanding of sexist violence as an aspect of women's oppression. I wonder whether the EC made any attempt to relate the case to the large body of research and theorizing around domestic violence, male plausibility, barriers to reporting attacks etc.?
What's the best case scenario for the EC here - that they're 100% convinced but they don't want the negative publicity of claiming outright that the allegations are fabricated? That still seems very poor to me. And if they've any sliver of doubt about the matter then what they've said is utterly contemptible. However, a speedy retraction, apology and reissuing of a more appropriate response could repair much of the damage at this stage.
Humanly of course, that's a very understandable reaction, but according weight to such instincts is the product of an extremely poor understanding of sexist violence as an aspect of women's oppression. I wonder whether the EC made any attempt to relate the case to the large body of research and theorizing around domestic violence, male plausibility, barriers to reporting attacks etc.?
What's the best case scenario for the EC here - that they're 100% convinced but they don't want the negative publicity of claiming outright that the allegations are fabricated? That still seems very poor to me. And if they've any sliver of doubt about the matter then what they've said is utterly contemptible. However, a speedy retraction, apology and reissuing of a more appropriate response could repair much of the damage at this stage.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
G'wan then, what is it?!let me just check my copy of the socialist party constitution, oh, wait....
Edit: oh, the Executive Committee. Is that similar to the SWP's CC?
oskarsdrum
Active Member
The EC put their name to the statement so I'd think we're safe to presume so - unless they're some kind of renegrade grouping who've grabbed control of the website
I hope they get it sorted soon you know. No way can I take another three months of intense trot-intrigue drama!!!
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
I was just generally asking, as a "btw", who they are/what their function is. I wasn't suggesting or thinking that anyone's grabbed control of their website.The EC put their name to the statement so I'd think we're safe to presume so - unless they're some kind of renegrade grouping who've grabbed control of the website
I hope they get it sorted soon you know. No way can I take another three months of intense trot-intrigue drama!!!
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
The EC are the equivalent to the SWP's CC.
I have no wish to comment on the case itself but this is all very odd. I can't think of any way that statement could have been worded in a way that would be fair to all parties - it's just way too complex, sensitive and there are too many unknowns to be able to do that. Which makes me wonder why on earth they thought it a good idea to release any statement. It's just not necessary or appropriate - he's no longer a member and, as far as I'm concerned, the matter is now in the hands of the two parties concerned (Headley and the alleged victim), the police and the RMT.
It's not really anything to do with the SP - I don't see what could possibly be gained from releasing that statement (regardless of whether you're viewing it from the POV of justice or in a more cynical realpolitik perspective) and, predictably, it's pissed people off.
Maximum respect to dennisr though - can't have been an easy thing to do but, as others have said, you're no traitor - it was the right thing to do.
I have no wish to comment on the case itself but this is all very odd. I can't think of any way that statement could have been worded in a way that would be fair to all parties - it's just way too complex, sensitive and there are too many unknowns to be able to do that. Which makes me wonder why on earth they thought it a good idea to release any statement. It's just not necessary or appropriate - he's no longer a member and, as far as I'm concerned, the matter is now in the hands of the two parties concerned (Headley and the alleged victim), the police and the RMT.
It's not really anything to do with the SP - I don't see what could possibly be gained from releasing that statement (regardless of whether you're viewing it from the POV of justice or in a more cynical realpolitik perspective) and, predictably, it's pissed people off.
Maximum respect to dennisr though - can't have been an easy thing to do but, as others have said, you're no traitor - it was the right thing to do.
tenniselbow
Active Member
Whatever they thought of the merits or otherwise of the case, they'd have done better to stay quiet. Relating this case directly to any sort of theorizing of domestic violence would also have been a mistake, though these are certainly important issues that need to be addressed more abstractly.
I think you'll be waiting a long time for a retraction or apology, oskar. However foolish or inappropriate this statement was, though, I can't seeing there being too much fallout for the SP. Can anyone else? The accused's speedy resignation put distance between the case and the organization. The party's poorly-judged actions - consisting merely in issuing a highly problematic statement - are just incomparable with those that have occupied most of the thread.
No it's not as simple as that, just coz he's not a card carrying member doesn't mean there's distance between him and the party.
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
Yeah - it's a daft statement but it's a hell of a stretch, and IMO unfair, to draw an equivalence between that and the Delta affair (though I get the impression that oskarsdrum has as much as admitted that comment was more an emotional reaction, which I can understand - my initial reaction upon hearing the Delta stuff wasn't exactly rational either).
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
Enough distance to make it very difficult to understand why anyone thought this statement was a good idea though.
imposs1904
Thread Killa'
I thought I recognised you. Trying to do a paper sale in the Brunswick Centre is the equivalent of internal exile in my book. You must have pissed someone off on the CC.
Similar threads
