imposs1904
Thread Killa'
and there was me thinking it was the bald old etonian who used to be a Labour MP in Stoke. Cheers butchers.
SWP expulsions and squabbles
- Thread starter Nigel Irritable
- Start date
and there was me thinking it was the bald old etonian who used to be a Labour MP in Stoke. Cheers butchers.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Google informs me he was the son of tory MP and stepson of ulster unionist MP as well. As well as being the stepdad of belboids mate from the longpigs.
barney_pig
Po-cha-na-quar-hip
Reminiscent of the tooth and nail confrontation between the supporters of Lawrence and Healy in the socialist fellowship in the early '60s when the mass of well meaning labour lefties watched on as the competing trots condemned and denounced each other over which third world liberation leader was actually a stooge for western imperialism and which was the new Lenin for the red sixties (answers a) both of them b) neither).
imposs1904
Thread Killa'
you've got to love our betters. they will insist on spreading themselves around.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
and Bear Grylls' uncle!
Nah, trot overload in the LU won't be a positive...
that's not been decided yet, nothing has, that is the worry, it can be shaped by those with the most energy/loudest mouth
leyton96
NGO's selling privilege checking solutions
Further to the Steve Hedley issue someone purporting to be an RMT insider has issued a fairly hard hitting statement against Andy Littlechild's intervention into the matter. Fair enough we've no way of knowing who this person is but if what he is saying is true Andy Littlechild has been very naughty indeed.
http://100milesfromthesea.wordpress...ittlechild-rmt-rep/comment-page-1/#comment-22
http://100milesfromthesea.wordpress...ittlechild-rmt-rep/comment-page-1/#comment-22
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
Well it's all under a half-pseudonym so unless "Gerald" can prove they party to all the details of the case, it could be pure invention.
Plus - Andy never said that the CPS kicked out the case. He said their criteria were such that the police didn't that they had enough evidence to be sufficiently sure of a prosecution. Not quite the same thing as the police finding him innocent. So he;s in SolFed - so what? The line about not being in a group was a response to SH's circle putting out the Caroline and another woman who alleged bullying against Hedly were part of a clique of AWL members determined to take a pop at someone in another group (Caroline isn't AWL, and nor is Andy).
And re the point about the mental health issues - since when has self-harming meant a tendency to be violent towards others?
Plus - Andy never said that the CPS kicked out the case. He said their criteria were such that the police didn't that they had enough evidence to be sufficiently sure of a prosecution. Not quite the same thing as the police finding him innocent. So he;s in SolFed - so what? The line about not being in a group was a response to SH's circle putting out the Caroline and another woman who alleged bullying against Hedly were part of a clique of AWL members determined to take a pop at someone in another group (Caroline isn't AWL, and nor is Andy).
And re the point about the mental health issues - since when has self-harming meant a tendency to be violent towards others?
oskarsdrum
Active Member
No refutation of the procedural improprieties highlighted ny Littlechild mind you....though if AL did misrepresent the police statement like that's deeply dishonest.
One_Stop_Shop
Well-Known Member
Has Steve Hedley made any statement about the abusive and misogyinistic comments he made towards a young woman on facebook?
Now this is in the public domain will the RMT investigate this?
Now this is in the public domain will the RMT investigate this?
leyton96
NGO's selling privilege checking solutions
If Gerald is for real then I think Andy Littlechild's credibility has to be seriously questioned.
Why misrepresent the police quote? Why deny that the RMT had seen evidence of abusive emails and texts from Leneghan? Why deny what Bob Crow wrote to Steve Hedley?
As for 'procedural improprieties' I think we should suspend judgement on that one until we hear the RMT's side of the story.
A side they have been unable to put because that investigation is still ongoing now that there is an appeal going to the Council of Executives.
leyton96
NGO's selling privilege checking solutions
Not that I'm aware of. Although reading the full thread they both come across very badly. I think they'd both be advised to stay away from facebook threads until they learn how to interact like civilized human beings.
If they were in my union branch I'd tell them both to grow up and stop behaving like children.
One_Stop_Shop
Well-Known Member
I think it's totally wrong to say that thread makes them both come across very badly, as if there is some kind of parity between what they have both said. Hedley has been openly sexist and misogynistic. I don't think it's good enough to say that he should just grow up. If someone was openly racist in this way I doubt you would react in this way, and rightly so. The same should go for someone being sexist and misogynistic. Is it ok to have a deputy general secretary of a union who obviously feels it is ok to throw around sexist abuse in this way?
One_Stop_Shop
Well-Known Member
The if Gerald is for real bit is crucial though. Anyone can post anything anonymously, and there is no way of knowing if any of it is true.
leyton96
NGO's selling privilege checking solutions
I think we'd have to look at the context wouldn't it.
If someone racially abuses someone where the abuse is all one way, then certainly you can say the very strongest sanctions should be applied.
If it came in the context of a heated argument where both sides are trading insults freely then my instincts are to use the 'word in your ear, stop being a bloody pillock' approach should be the first port of call and from there see if the behaviour can be reformed without recourse to formal procedures. But that's just me.
leyton96
NGO's selling privilege checking solutions
Yep. No argument there.
chilango
Hypothetical Wanker
Yes it does.
Two points to bear in mind.
First the SWP et al are the weakest they have been in generations and are no longer strong enough to take over mass movements.
Secondly, many of the people seemingly involved in LU are either from the Trot left or would have been fellow travellers of it in years gone by.
One_Stop_Shop
Well-Known Member
Can't agree with you at all. We aren't talking about a wet behind the ears trade unionist, he is the deputy general secretary of the RMT. In that context, if he throws around racist or sexist abuse, then telling them you are a bloody pillock is totally inadequate.
leyton96
NGO's selling privilege checking solutions
I suppose it comes down to what it is you are asking the RMT to do?
Why would they need to hold an investigation when I'm sure no one would deny what happened? It's all there on facebook for anyone to see.
Maybe I'm putting words in your mouth but I think you are saying the RMT should take some sort of action against Steve Hedley? The question then becomes what the penalty should be?
If you are saying Steve Hedley should be sacked for inappropriate language in the context of a sweary, abusive row on facebook then I think that is a disproportionate punishment for the offence. I also think (purely anecdotally and based on no empirical evidence what so ever) that most RMT members would be completely bewildered at such a punishment.
If you are saying he should be suspended or sanctioned in some other way I have some sympathy for that but on balance I don't believe it would be the best way of tackling the issue. I think it's important to bear in mind that Steve Hedley is an elected full time official. A decision to suspend him by the General Secretary or the Council of Execs would be over-riding the democratic mandate of the membership, something that should only be done in the most serious of circumstances. I don't believe this is the most serious of circumstances given it occurred in the context of a sweary row on social media.
If I was Bob Crow my preferred option would be to pull him into the office, tell him this kind of public behaviour is unacceptable in a high profile elected official of the union and extract a promise it wouldn't happen again, perhaps followed up by a written warning.
If the behaviour persists then the RMT leaderhsip would be in a stronger position to take action having demonstrated they had exhausted all other avenues to resolve the situation.
emanymton
A cat politely sat on the flaming gardener.
But isn't the problem the underlaying ideas that the comments expose rather than the comments themselves? General point by the way not necessarily about this specific case.
oskarsdrum
Active Member
I don't see how anyone has the right to talk about the supposed specifics of her mental health condition either. However, the big thing will be whether the RMT used people who wouldn't have a conflict of interest, or distorting preconceptions, In the "no case to answer" investigation.
leyton96
NGO's selling privilege checking solutions
For sure, but we are on more difficult ground there.
If you are talking about handing out punishments that are really aimed at the ideas behind an action, where the context is secondary then you are entering thought crime territory.
Those ideas are prevalent throughout society. Name calling over personal appearance is a common occurrence between both sexes in the workplace for example. That doesn't make it right and as leftists/socialists/anarchists etc we can see the reactionary ideas that influence these behaviours. But the fact that they are so prevalent in society mean that for many people they can seem normal and trivial. We've probably all had the experience in the workplace when we've objected to some run of the mill reactionary stuff like a fellow male co-worker referring to a female co-worker as a cunt behind her back or fellas reading page 3 or people blaming immigrants for the housing shortage etc and been greeted with puzzled stares and mutters of 'looney left'.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't challenge reactionary ideas but it does demonstrate that tackling them is about more than just being seen to take a hard line against them. If that were the case our friends in the SWP and FRFI would have rooted out racsim and sexism a long time ago with the methods they learned from the Duke of Wellington in Blackadder ('Shout, shout and shout again').
The vibe I'm getting here is that Steve Hedley (or anyone who displays behaviour that can be judged as sexist, no matter what the context) should be made an example of for public policy reasons.
I'm not sure how effective that would actually be. Surely it's better to see if the behaviour can be changed first with discussion? After all if we can't persuade folk who are leaders in the labour movement without a big stick what hope do we have for the rest of society? Is the big stick going to be the first and last port of call for everybody with any sort of reactionary ideas or behaviour in a future socialist/anarchist society?
As I've said before I think quite a lot of people would think it was disproportionate to lose your job (particularly one folk had elected you to do) for things said in a bust up where neither party behaved particularly well. If the behaviour persists I think a union leadership that had demonstrated it had used all means short of sanction to change the behaviour would get a much more sympathetic hearing from the membership than one that just went straight for the big stick.
Similar threads
