Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

SWP expulsions and squabbles

andysays said:
Instead, you seem to be denying that what happened in this particular case (and all of us here now know enough about it to express an opinion) was in any way predatory, abusive or something which was, at the very least, a profoundly dodgy, selfish and wrong thing for the man involved to do.
Click to expand...


No, not true at all. Stop making shit up.

Smith is accused of sexual harassment and of rape. I don't know if he is guilty of rape, but I do know that the Social Workers have handled this very badly. They are not competent to investigate the allegation and seem to have wanted to sweep it under the carpet.

Your anger at Smith and the Social Work CC may very well be justified. Venting it at me and pretending that I support Smith or that I support sexual abuse helps nobody.

Unfortunately, this malicious dishonesty and endless verbal abuse is typical of U75.
 
SLK said:
Yes, the isn open discussions on whether to appoint a full timer shows they're strangled by their need to try to be almost unanimous and make sure everyone has had their say.

The opposition are very angry this evening, as you are probably all talking about. I'm just about to catch up with the thread.

Edit: I actually meant to respond to your other post on the isn.

Edit2: ok, so no discussion of witchhunters here
Click to expand...
No none here but loads of Monty Python Burn the Witch on FB.
 
Before Theory's post is absolutely right, but it is true that comrade spurski was arguing a few pages back that Smith should have been expelled on the basis his relationship with the 17 year old alone. that's what JHE responded to initially and tbf i don't think he's really defended Smith on any other basis
 
that's certainly what I responded to initially, that the mere existence of the relationship was grounds for him losing his job and being expelled.


Before Theory said:
He has been forced to resign because after the relationship was over he continued to harass and intimidate her, despite her telling him to leave her alone. Some Central Committee members saw those texts
Click to expand...
utterly, utterly disgusting

and the cover for it is the socialist morality is more ethical than bourgeois morality drivel that still gets spouted as being pertinent, even if, in this specific incident, somehow some individuals have fallen short of expectations.




have I forgotten knowing about this allegation of documented evidence of intimidation, or is it new?
 
Das Uberdog said:
... it is true that comrade spurski was arguing a few pages back that Smith should have been expelled on the basis his relationship with the 17 year old alone.
Click to expand...

No. I read spurski as saying that once she protested at his behaviour, then he should have been expelled. Presumably, because as soon as she goes to the CC, the remote hypothetical possibility of it being a loving relationship of equals collapses into something sordid, exploitative, and incompatible with membership of a party that champions women's liberation.

I think Spurski is right about this.

At this stage, there probably aren't many people open to being persuaded to change sides, but the forthcoming X case might shift a few people. Apparently, she has prepared a very detailed 30 page submission, with many SWP-member witnesses.
 
Oisin123 said:
No. I read spurski as saying that once she protested at his behaviour, then he should have been expelled.
Click to expand...

I've just reread the original post, and while tbf I can see some ambiguity, the bits I've bolded were what caught my eye and caused me to argue that she had the right to start the relationship, and, as a corollary, so did he. I think everyone is agreed that once she made a complaint the situation changed.

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...

whatever, time to move on
 
Sorry if i have confused things...

My view is that he should have been expelled once a complaint had been made and he admitted to the relationship.


I am uncomfortable about the idea of a nearly 50 year old choosing a 17 yr old as a partner...if she had been in her 20 i would have no opinion about it. I am aware that this is just my opinion and therefore my problem...
 
laptop said:
FFS.

I know the Party style guide says all criticism of the Party or its members is to be referred to as "a witchhunt"... but...
Click to expand...
why are you being such a complete and utter knob? At no point in this thread have I discussed Martin Smith. What you quote wasn't a reference to Martin Smith. JHE asked me to clarify to whom I was referring the "witchhunt" comments to, and I replied the comments were about JHE.

JHE made a simple comment about not all relationships between 17 and 48-year-olds with power relations involved are abusive .it's a general comment, I agree with, and went on to explain why. It's just an opinion you Dick. if you don't agree with it fair enough, but there is no need to be so melodramatic ,and sectarian.
 
Before Theory said:
He has not been forced into resigning because he had a relationship with a woman many years younger than him.

He has been forced to resign because after the relationship was over he continued to harass and intimidate her, despite her telling him to leave her alone. Some Central Committee members saw those texts and agreed that his behaviour was unacceptable and pressurised him to resign as NS. He did that under protest but managed to get time at the 2011 conference to perform a "poor me" monologue which was lapped up by the party faithful culminating in the now notorious standing ovation.

I was at the conference and left the SWP after that nauseating spectacle, and watched as his supporters proceeded to vilify the young woman and her supporters over a period of a year. I have written at length about this earlier on this site, but I still can't believe it took 4 years from when the initial complaint was made to finally see Smith's resignation.
Click to expand...
why are you, and the 6 people who liked your post, being such complete and utter knobs? At no point in this thread have I discussed Martin Smith. What you quote wasn't a reference to Martin Smith. JHE asked me to clarify to whom I was referring the "witchhunt" comments to, and I replied the comments were about JHE.

JHE made a simple comment about not all relationships between 17 and 48-year-olds with power relations involved are abusive .it's a general comment, I agree with, and went on to explain why. It's just an opinion you Dicks. if you don't agree with it fair enough, but there is no need to be so melodramatic ,and sectarian.
 
ResistanceMP3 said:
why are you being such a complete and utter knob? At no point in this thread have I discussed Martin Smith. What you quote wasn't a reference to Martin Smith. JHE asked me to clarify to whom I was referring the "witchhunt" comments to, and I replied the comments were about JHE.

JHE made a simple comment about not all relationships between 17 and 48-year-olds with power relations involved are abusive .it's a general comment, I agree with, and went on to explain why. It's just an opinion you Dick. if you don't agree with it fair enough, but there is no need to be so melodramatic ,and sectarian.
Click to expand...

Disagreeing with you isn't a sign of being a knob - rather the reverse, particularly on this issue.

Abuse of the term "witch-hunt" to shout down criticism is a characteristic of the Party, its members and that far larger group, its ex-members. That is sectarian.
 
ResistanceMP3 said:
why are you, and the 6 people who liked your post, being such complete and utter knobs? At no point in this thread have I discussed Martin Smith. What you quote wasn't a reference to Martin Smith. JHE asked me to clarify to whom I was referring the "witchhunt" comments to, and I replied the comments were about JHE.

JHE made a simple comment about not all relationships between 17 and 48-year-olds with power relations involved are abusive .it's a general comment, I agree with, and went on to explain why. It's just an opinion you Dicks. if you don't agree with it fair enough, but there is no need to be so melodramatic ,and sectarian.
Click to expand...

Maybe it would be an idea if you, and possibly JHE, were to choose another thread to not discuss Martin Smith on, because that's pretty much what this thread is about...
 
If the SWP high command can't take some good advice from such a long-standing, trusting friend as Rosen then well.....good luck to youse all. He's done a fine job of clearly cataloguing the essentials of the disaster and pointing towards a long and painful attempt at rectifying things.
 
It's a crying shame the party has lost the support of someone like Rosen over Its handling of this mess. But the fact he uses the letter to suggest the party shouldn't exist in its current form isn't exactly going to endear him to those who aren't leaving the party or planning to leave.
 
Rosen's an odd one with respect to the party, isn't he! Anyone know why he's historically played this consistently loyalist role while remaining outside the group?

As regards this latest wordy missive, well, it is late in coming. And the timing itself is far from impeccable. All this could have been said in January. I wonder why Delta getting his party P45 was the catalyst.

Talking of strange positionings,what on earth happened to John Molynoux through this!? Really confirmed his court jester role it seems to me.
 
bolshiebhoy said:
It's a crying shame the party has lost the support of someone like Rosen over Its handling of this mess. But the fact he uses the letter to suggest the party shouldn't exist in its current form isn't exactly going to endear him to those who aren't leaving the party or planning to leave.
Click to expand...

The question about the party's form raises for me this issue of "political" vs. "non-political" accounts of the crisis. This gets bandied around a lot, generally to the effect that "political" explanations trump the other form. I don't think an account of its degeneration can be reduced simply to politics, but shouldn't a political explanation for the crisis focus squarely on party structure and forms, and in this respect Rosen has a point. Or does the "political" explanation extend only to Seymour's eclecticism and the failure to thrust the lessons from the Women's Voice debate on to the student cadre?
 
Earlier on Rosen suggested he'd always supported swp initiatives because they were the best of what was going on the left rather than because he thought cliff and Harman were the last word in intellectual-organizers. which makes a certain sense to me, what did he gain from it otherwise? a readership of hundreds in SR and a few Marxism slots...?
 
Moo
laptop said:
Disagreeing with you isn't a sign of being a knob - rather the reverse, particularly on this issue.

Abuse of the term "witch-hunt" to shout down criticism is a characteristic of the Party, its members and that far larger group, its ex-members. That is sectarian.
Click to expand...
you haven't disagreed, you jump to an erroneous conclusion.
But if you read the thread I've already conceded witch hunt was over the top. And was laughed off by those to whom it was said. So stop grinding your axe, regardless of the fax :-P comrade
 
andysays said:
Maybe it would be an idea if you, and possibly JHE, were to choose another thread to not discuss Martin Smith on, because that's pretty much what this thread is about...
Click to expand...
read what's said, the topic was resolved amicably.
There's been a 1001 topics raised on this thread, fuck all to do with Smith. So if going to moderate, do it properly.
 
benedict said:
The question about the party's form raises for me this issue of "political" vs. "non-political" accounts of the crisis. This gets bandied around a lot, generally to the effect that "political" explanations trump the other form. I don't think an account of its degeneration can be reduced simply to politics, but shouldn't a political explanation for the crisis focus squarely on party structure and forms, and in this respect Rosen has a point. Or does the "political" explanation extend only to Seymour's eclecticism and the failure to thrust the lessons from the Women's Voice debate on to the student cadre?
Click to expand...
That kind of depends on whether one thinks the party has a general problem of sexual predation by the leadership or that this crisis is a one off, albeit a one off fuck up of epic proportions. No prizes for guessing which of those alternatives I favor.
 
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
5K
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
16K
articul8
articul8
Back
Top Bottom