Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

SWP expulsions and squabbles

bolshiebhoy said:
Sorry hadn't seen that before I replied. I did rewrite my reply but slk had already quoted me by then so it would have looked odd if I'd edited it.

Anyhoows, more importantly than our minor handbags, are you really saying we shouldn't be pleased? If the argument is he should have been expelled earlier then I understand the point but don't agree. Given the only process the party had to deal with this stuff and given its outcome he couldn't be expelled. Should whoever has just had a word with him had that word earlier? Almost certainly yes but there are clearly at least three wings (if the notion of more than two wings makes any sense) to the party on this whole mess and their jockeying is taking some time to play itself out.

What will be interesting to watch is how the opposition reacts to this. Arguably the only thing giving the opposition coherence is the delta fiasco. Anyone who's spoken to them or read them knows they are massively diverse on every other conceivable issue, it's their collective determination to get these allegations properly resolved that keeps those differences at bay imho. Presumably the argument will be let's wait and see what happens to the second allegation. But assuming that is sorted in a fair way then maybe finally the real political differences can become the main topic of discussion and people can decide on the merits of those politics alone.
Click to expand...


I think he should have been expelled when he admitted have a relationship with a 17yr old. He was a 48 yr old cc member. He had been in the party for approx 30 yrs and had worked for the party for 20 yrs. He is therefore in a power of authority and power within the swp. To begin a relationship with a 17 yr old betrays a serious lack of judgement and misuse of power. Therefore he should have been expelled.
In my 23 years in the SWP I saw members expelled on the word of the woman in cases of domestic violence when the men claimed they had done nothing...in my opinion it was right to expel those men. I know of a man expelled after a woman said that she could not remember consenting to sex with him as she was very drunk...again i fully agreed with the decision.

My problem here was he was not expelled ... the rest of this is like a nightmare. How anyone thought that the swp could investigate a rape allegation is beyond me. How they thought they could find he was innocent is beyond everyone. Everything else has flowed from these politically poisonous decisions in my opinion

I take no joy in slating anyone left organisation ... in the 4 yrs since I left I simply used to say that I think the swp was no longer a party that I wanted to belong to... I never had an issue with it or its members...I just disagreed with aspects of how it operated...but now I would not touch it with a barge pole and do not believe it can be trusted.

It has displayed the worst traits of the stalinist CP
 
comrade spurski said:
I think he should have been expelled when he admitted have a relationship with a 17yr old. He was a 48 yr old cc member. He had been in the party for approx 30 yrs and had worked for the party for 20 yrs. He is therefore in a power of authority and power within the swp. To begin a relationship with a 17 yr old betrays a serious lack of judgement and misuse of power. Therefore he should have been expelled.
Click to expand...
we went through this when the issue first arose, whenever that was. Seems so long ago now.

Whilst from the perspective of outsiders the "power of authority" point is very clear and very troublesome, it ignores that the woman concerned is of an age when she is entitled to make relationship decisions for herself. No-one else can or should stand in her way.

The exception is in the case of genuine, professional power/authority, eg teachers, police officers etc. As the SWP is purely a voluntary group, and nothing more despite delusions about Lenin or whatever, that doesn't apply.

If no-one should stand in her way, then they can hardly stand in his either. Her parents, her friends, and his parents and friends, people close might have some sort of case for making their feelings known, but no more than that. It's nothing to do with anyone else. Until the point at which she made a complaint. After that, well, we're about 12,000 posts in so far...
 
newbie said:
Whilst from the perspective of outsiders the "power of authority" point is very clear and very troublesome, it ignores that the woman concerned is of an age when she is entitled to make relationship decisions for herself. No-one else can or should stand in her way.
Click to expand...

Sort of. If you take the theory of vanguardism seriously, then he was in the position of a teacher, and the applicable age of consent is 18.
 
In any event, it doesn't matter if attending a group is voluntary or not if someone has the authority to preclude you from it despite what you want.
 
newbie said:
we went through this when the issue first arose, whenever that was. Seems so long ago now.

Whilst from the perspective of outsiders the "power of authority" point is very clear and very troublesome, it ignores that the woman concerned is of an age when she is entitled to make relationship decisions for herself. No-one else can or should stand in her way.

The exception is in the case of genuine, professional power/authority, eg teachers, police officers etc. As the SWP is purely a voluntary group, and nothing more despite delusions about Lenin or whatever, that doesn't apply.

If no-one should stand in her way, then they can hardly stand in his either. Her parents, her friends, and his parents and friends, people close might have some sort of case for making their feelings known, but no more than that. It's nothing to do with anyone else. Until the point at which she made a complaint. After that, well, we're about 12,000 posts in so far...
Click to expand...


I think his judgement was questionable to say the least...in the swp he WAS in a position of authority and power...therefore he should have been expelled once he admitted that he'd begun a relationship with a 17 year old member of a party that he was a leading member of. fair enough if I'm in the minority but I honestly expect socialist men (with over 30 years membership of a socialist organisation and 20 yrs experience of working for one) to have better judgement than that.
the woman may be of a legal age but I, writing as a 46 year old man, fail to comprehend how I would want to have a sexual relationship with a 17 year old.
 
would a court take 'vanguardism' seriously? Would it consider that there is a formal authority involved? more so than in steps' allotment society?
 
newbie said:
would a court take 'vanguardism' seriously? Would it consider that there is a formal authority involved? more so than in steps' allotment society?
Click to expand...

You want pedantry? As far as I can see the 2003 Act does not define "educational institution", so it's up to the court. Indeed, it shouldn't define it, to save providing loopholes, for example unregistered & informal religious classes.

The point, however, was about the ethics of the situation.
 
newbie said:
would a court take 'vanguardism' seriously? Would it consider that there is a formal authority involved? more so than in steps' allotment society?
Click to expand...


it not about a court case or the law re his inappropriate behaviour in having a sexual relationship with a 17yr old. By law there is nothing wrong with that but as a socialist you can be expelled for many things that are legal. If you argue in favour of immigration controls you can be expelled from the swp but that is not illegal. If you refer to women as birds you can be expelled but that is not illegal
 
newbie said:
...If no-one should stand in her way, then they can hardly stand in his either...
Click to expand...

I don't agree. He was in a position of authority. With that comes a need for greater responsibility.

If he was too selfish to recognise that, someone else in a position of authority should have pointed it out to him. To the extent that no-one did, the entire leadership, then and subsequently, are responsible.
 
comrade spurski said:
I think his judgement was questionable to say the least
Click to expand...
oh so do I. joining the SWP has always struck me as bizarre, staying in it is just quite extraordinary.

that's only only partially a joke, but I'm not trying to make light of an obviously serious matter
the woman may be of a legal age but I, writing as a 46 year old man, fail to comprehend how I would want to have a sexual relationship with a 17 year old.
Click to expand...
me too, mate, me too. I've met teenagers.

Not the point though. Whether middle aged blokes approve of the relationships of others is neither here nor there. Until you can campaign to raise the age of consent, she is fully entitled to make her own decisions.

I'll listen to laptop & cesare, if they come back and say that in this specific circumstance, the law says she is a year too young to consent. However the principle, that you have to accept young peoples right to their own decisions in their own lives is not to be glossed over simply because some of us think we know better.
 
comrade spurski said:
it not about a court case or the law re his inappropriate behaviour in having a sexual relationship with a 17yr old. By law there is nothing wrong with that but as a socialist you can be expelled for many things that are legal. If you argue in favour of immigration controls you can be expelled from the swp but that is not illegal. If you refer to women as birds you can be expelled but that is not illegal
Click to expand...
and you think a court would take power and authority as arbitrary (and bonkers) as that seriously?
 
I don't know if she was also a SWP employee. But if she was, then yes, an employment court would take into account Delta's seniority in a complaint of sexual harassment.
 
laptop said:
You want pedantry? As far as I can see the 2003 Act does not define "educational institution", so it's up to the court. Indeed, it shouldn't define it, to save providing loopholes, for example unregistered & informal religious classes.

The point, however, was about the ethics of the situation.
Click to expand...
but what ethics? she made her decision, as she was entitled to do. What ethics are there that can abrogate that? What is ethical about outsiders making her decisions for her?

If their relationship was breaking the law, because of his position, then she was not entitled to make her own decisions, You can call that pedantry if you want, but to my mind it's actually quite important. At the point of choosing to embark on a relationship she has reasonable expectation that she can choose, and that outsiders should not interfere.
 
newbie said:
we went through this when the issue first arose, whenever that was. Seems so long ago now.

Whilst from the perspective of outsiders the "power of authority" point is very clear and very troublesome, it ignores that the woman concerned is of an age when she is entitled to make relationship decisions for herself. No-one else can or should stand in her way.

The exception is in the case of genuine, professional power/authority, eg teachers, police officers etc. As the SWP is purely a voluntary group, and nothing more despite delusions about Lenin or whatever, that doesn't apply.
Click to expand...
utter bollocks.
 
newbie said:
agreed, but I don't think she was.
Click to expand...
The point stands about his seniority/position of authority whether it was also an employment relationship or not. It's a situation of unequal power and vulnerability/potential for abuse. In itself, if there was no subsequent complaint of abuse, it's just a position of increased potential. But there was a subsequent complaint of abuse, and so that position of increased vulnerability cannot simply be discounted.
 
cesare said:
The point stands about his seniority/position of authority whether it was also an employment relationship or not. It's a situation of unequal power and vulnerability/potential for abuse. In itself, if there was no subsequent complaint of abuse, it's just a position of increased potential. But there was a subsequent complaint of abuse, and so that position of increased vulnerability cannot simply be discounted.
Click to expand...
ok, fair enough, thankyou. Would that change at the age of 18, or 21 or something else?

In any case, the point made was that he should have been expelled when they began their relationship, and I stand by what I've said (inasmuch as I believe it was a mutual relationship that went sour. If I've got that factually wrong, then I withdraw unconditionally). She also entered into it and what she wanted at that point cannot be discounted.

Subsequently she made a complaint, and thus of course asymmetric power can't be discounted- if it ever gets to court it will, rightly, be a major issue.
 
discokermit said:
when i was eighteen the swp cc had more influence over me than teachers ever had. or coppers or bosses or parents.
Click to expand...


We're talking about 17, but even so, if you'd fallen for an older comrade and outsiders had demanded s/he be expelled what attitude would you have taken?
 
newbie said:
ok, fair enough, thankyou. Would that change at the age of 18, or 21 or something else?

In any case, the point made was that he should have been expelled when they began their relationship, and I stand by what I've said (inasmuch as I believe it was a mutual relationship that went sour. If I've got that factually wrong, then I withdraw unconditionally). She also entered into it and what she wanted at that point cannot be discounted.

Subsequently she made a complaint, and thus of course asymmetric power can't be discounted- if it ever gets to court it will, rightly, be a major issue.
Click to expand...

He couldn't be expelled when they began their relationship as it was initially conducted in secret. What has been suggested here is that he should have been expelled once he had admitted to it.

And I really don't understand why you're constantly going on about courts and legal distinctions re age of consent. The SWP claim a higher standard than mere bourgeois law and morality, so arguing that he did nothing actually illegal is an irrelevent distraction.
 
andysays said:
He couldn't be expelled when they began their relationship as it was initially conducted in secret. What has been suggested here is that he should have been expelled once he had admitted to it.

And I really don't understand why you're constantly going on about courts and legal distinctions re age of consent. The SWP claim a higher standard than mere bourgeois law and morality, so arguing that he did nothing actually illegal is an irrelevent distraction.
Click to expand...
sorry, I don't invest the SWP with some sort of superiority or believe any of this "mere bourgeois ... morality" stuff. What's 'mere' about the age of consent? What's 'socialist' about pretending it can somehow be ignored?

Or "mere bourgeois law" when it comes to relationships and the like (the concept works in other circumstances, but here we're concerned with two people having a relationship).

For myself I couldn't care less who they expel, I think they've been a laughing stock for the 30+ years I've had to put up with them, except when they've been a more major problem. But I do actually think the way young people are treated matters, and what's being said, as I see it, seeks to trample on her right to choose.

it's not about 'him', it's her.

She was no longer a child. She was past the age of consent. That's not some minor point, it's a massive milestone in her life and it entitles her to make her own (legal) relationship choices. Just the same as you or I.

Think that phrase through- the right to choose. If a 17yo got pregnant no-one here would suggest that outsiders should have a say in what she did next (yeah, doctors in a professional capacity). Yet there seems to be an assumption that she does not have the right to choose to embark on this particular relationship, because of disapproval of who she chose.

I can't see how that counts as ethical.

As said above, the whole situation changes focus at the point at which she made a complaint, but that is actually the case in any relationship, is it not? It's all fine, and no-one else's business until someone complains they're being abused. At which point it becomes a matter for wider society, and then all the circumstances, including balance of power, are open for examination.
 
newbie said:
how would the 17 year old you have responded to being told that?
Click to expand...
Thats kind of the point a 17 year old may be legally old enough to make discussions about there relationships, but they are still immature and will make mistakes, but they should be making those mistakes together with people their own age. 48 year old men in positions of authority have a responsibility not to take advantage of that immaturity. No one would have a problem with a couple of teenage SWP members going at it like rabbits.
 
agreed, wholly. In entering a relationship with her he behaved disgustingly badly. Even without allegations that he abused her, or even worse, raped her.

But that doesn't change what I've said. Until a complaint is made by her, there is no way of censuring him without telling her she doesn't have the right to choose.
 
newbie said:
agreed, wholly. In entering a relationship with her he behaved disgustingly badly. Even without allegations that he abused her, or even worse, raped her.

But that doesn't change what I've said. Until a complaint is made by her, there is no way of censuring him without telling her she doesn't have the right to choose.
Click to expand...
  1. That's bollocks
  2. Even if it weren't, a complaint has been made by her (see previous 400+ pages for more detail...)
Do keep up, dear :facepalm:

(ETA bold)
 
newbie said:
ok, fair enough, thankyou. Would that change at the age of 18, or 21 or something else?

In any case, the point made was that he should have been expelled when they began their relationship, and I stand by what I've said (inasmuch as I believe it was a mutual relationship that went sour. If I've got that factually wrong, then I withdraw unconditionally). She also entered into it and what she wanted at that point cannot be discounted.

Subsequently she made a complaint, and thus of course asymmetric power can't be discounted- if it ever gets to court it will, rightly, be a major issue.
Click to expand...
It probably did start as a mutual relationship, but an inequal one. As to it going sour - I'd describe rape/abuse in stronger terms than going sour. Unless there's a suggestion that the allegations of abuse were made as a result of the relationship going sour?

The power differential would decrease over time, but I don't think you can assign an age to that point and definitely not just a year or two.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Smokeandsteam
Facebook: Australia content ban, SWP removal and related news
2 3 4
Replies
115
Views
8K
NoXion
NoXion
T
SWP trash AWL stall at Marxism, accusations of violent threats
2
Replies
50
Views
3K
Magnus McGinty
Magnus McGinty
Magnus McGinty
Are the SWP a State Asset?
2
Replies
58
Views
4K
Beats & Pieces
B
P
'SWP urge members to get involved with 'Momentum'
2 3 4
Replies
99
Views
7K
J Ed
J Ed
Das Uberdog
Former SWP members plan to sabotage Steve Hedley's TUSC campaign
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
234
Views
15K
articul8
articul8
Back
Top Bottom