SWP expulsions and squabbles

[butchersapron]

Yes, Not in our Genes was an attack on sociobiology that contained many a pretty disgusting strawman of Dawkins.

 

[discokermit]

I wonder if these emails that just happened to end up in kimber's possession will be brought up at conference. I don't think similar examples of private emails or discussions by the face-book expelees ending up in the CC's hand were every looked into seriously.

and 'j' is 'x'.
hacking the emails of a sexual harrasment complainant. could these people become any more loathsome?

 

[treelover]

Old Left Line Up In Shocking Attack on Grassroots Claimant’s Group
Posted on October 23, 2013 by johnny void | 42 Comments
The Youth Fight For Jobs campaign have published a piece this week attacking Boycott Workfare supporters who have called on the PCS Union to take meaningful and concrete action against benefit sanctions.
In an astonishing diatribe the group, who are largely a Socialist Party front, accuse campaign group Boycott Workfare of ‘divide and rule’. Based on a string of entirely spurious accusations, Youth Fight for Jobs spokesperson Ian Pattison claims to be ‘shocked and surprised’ that a campaign opposed to benefit sanctions should call on the PCS to take a stronger position on their members being forced to implement those sanctions.
This is not a controversial position, even within the PCS Union themselves. At their annual conference earlier in the year a resolution was passed instructing the PCS National Executive to explore means of non-cooperation with sanctions. Since then there has been silence from the PCS leadership on the issue.

http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/

Just wondered what all this is about, The Void has posted an article in which he claims (very robustly as his style) Youth Fight For Jobs(SP Front afaik) has viciously criticised Boycott Workfare of 'divide and rule' for demanding PCS take 'meaningful action' on sanctions, etc. Over to SP , etc.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Well BB?

Hannah's piece puts flesh on the cc line that the attempt at informal mediation between M and W was a mistake and a failure. Having read it and the prof's response about when people moved from believing W had been harassed to claiming rape it actually makes me feel better about Kimber and AC's role. Yes the case should have gone to the DC straight away and yes there was a problem with cc members dealing informally with a complaint about one of their own. But if anything Hannah's piece left me feeling more confident in the personal integrity of CK and AC. My major problem with her piece is the total denial about the political direction of the opposition, constantly repeating that's not relevant and that the issue is ONLY the dc cases just makes some of her other points seem shakier. It has to be relevant and the failure of the oppositions leaders to admit that, or to say clearly what their political platform for replacing the current leadership consists of is dishonest and guarantees their failure.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Where is this hounding?

The party that you don't have the bottle to actually join argues that he has a case to answer if he ever tries to rejoin. Does that not apply to society as well? Do we not get to question him on the case he has to answer? The stalinist logic at work here (the party has decided, the matter is now closed, it is now no one elses' business) is clear for all to see. God, it's so blatant.

Always know the boss is on sticky ground when he resorts to ad hominem attacks. My bottle or membership status aren't relevant although as it goes you're wrong.

On the more important issue, the dc found he had a case to answer on harassment based on the woman's evidence. Does that give you or me or anyone else the right to put posters up that suggest he's a rapist or that the only organisation the women asked to investigate didn't investigate when in fact it did? No it doesn't.

 

[emanymton]

Hannah's piece puts flesh on the cc line that the attempt at informal mediation between M and W was a mistake and a failure. Having read it and the prof's response about when people moved from believing W had been harassed to claiming rape it actually makes me feel better about Kimber and AC's role. Yes the case should have gone to the DC straight away and yes there was a problem with cc members dealing informally with a complaint about one of their own. But if anything Hannah's piece left me feeling more confident in the personal integrity of CK and AC. My major problem with her piece is the total denial about the political direction of the opposition, constantly repeating that's not relevant and that the issue is ONLY the dc cases just makes some of her other points seem shakier. It has to be relevant and the failure of the oppositions leaders to admit that, or to say clearly what their political platform for replacing the current leadership consists of is dishonest and guarantees their failure.

I haven't had chance to read much of it yet but have read Hannah's price and the very short reply by AC. What I found interesting was his comment that if Hannah felts at the time that W's compliant amounted to rape why did she not speak up then. This is a valid question, although, it is not 100% clear to me that she is saying this. But it leads to another question, if Hannah can reach this conclusion (and by all accounts other people at the time certainly did) then why couldn't AC and KC. I get a sense that despite knowing all the details AC does not feel a rape took place, while others who know the details do. I think therfore there may be a real dispute other what constitutes rape underlying some of this. And that is most certainly a political question. Also this whole thing is a result of two both the individual failings of Ms (guilty of rape or not) and the failings of the SWP in handling the case. The second of these is also a political question, one which it is possible to believe needs addressing without challenging wider SWP theory. I have often noticed that there is something of a divergance between what the SWP says and what it actually does, I am sure many in the opposition could simply see themselves as trying to bring those two things into alignment, especially with regards to the question of women's oppression.

 

[butchersapron]

Always know the boss is on sticky ground when he resorts to ad hominem attacks. My bottle or membership status aren't relevant although as it goes you're wrong.

On the more important issue, the dc found he had a case to answer on harassment based on the woman's evidence. Does that give you or me or anyone else the right to put posters up that suggest he's a rapist or that the only organisation the women asked to investigate didn't investigate when in fact it did? No it doesn't.

That doesn't address the logic i pointed out - it reaffirms it. The party has decided now the matter is closed, it's no ones elses business. The stupidity and danger of this position is now clearly shown by the piece you refer to in your other shoddy reply last night where Hannah reveals as key person concerned with dealing with the rape allegation believes that Martin Smith was guilty of rape. And where does this logic lead if he was found guilty of rape by the party? Whose business is it then? Is it still solely the parties or does it become societies? Which would mean that it only becomes wider societies business when the part decides it is wider societies business. This is pure stalinist logic either way. A party deciding what is right not just for itself but society behind closed doors.

 

[Oisin123]

I wonder if those accounts will have any resonance with people who had been loyalists up to now.

And BB is in fact heartened rather than shaken. This mentality is sufficiently strong in enough of the SWP that I think they are doomed.

 

[barney_pig]

And BB is in fact heartened rather than shaken. This mentality is sufficiently strong in enough of the SWP that I think they are doomed.

Don't forget that bb is not an swp member. He doesn't have the guts

 

[newbie]

Always know the boss is on sticky ground when he resorts to ad hominem attacks. My bottle or membership status aren't relevant although as it goes you're wrong.

On the more important issue, the dc found he had a case to answer on harassment based on the woman's evidence. Does that give you or me or anyone else the right to put posters up that suggest he's a rapist or that the only organisation the women asked to investigate didn't investigate when in fact it did? No it doesn't.

the right? a bunch of people have claimed that right, it's theirs by conquest and commitment unless a group of delta supporters care to go out overpasting. Is there such a group? very doubtful- delta isn't Assange, there's no hint he's an icon, however tarnished, with widespread personal support, he's just an apparatchik with a case to answer and residual protection from the apparatus.

so it looks like they have got the right by default, and there's nothing to be done about it.

except in the bourgeois courts of course, delta or Lavallette could sue for defamation

 

[Nigel Irritable]

And BB is in fact heartened rather than shaken. This mentality is sufficiently strong in enough of the SWP that I think they are doomed.

Yes, I think that you are right.

Even from the cynical point of view of somebody only capable of prioritising the good of the SWP, this kind of reaction makes no sense. The people who just want to get on with building the party are backing a strategy that cannot allow them to do that.

The SWP is completely and utterly finished in terms of its ability to recruit and retain young people now. It will only be able to recruit on the basis of ignorance, and even those who start out ignorant will have access to google and will encounter feminist activists, other left activists, etc. It is already facing a massive problem in terms of its age demographics, so it's not as if they can just wait and hope that it eventually gets easier at some point years down the road.

The only possible way out is to apologise, grovel and serve up the heads of the entire leadership ( who surely have it coming for gross incompetence even if our pragmatist isn't worried about their political or moral stances). That may not work, but at least they have some kind of shot on that basis.

 

[Das Uberdog]

To the owners of the Angry Women of Liverpool website,

Over the last week your website has made a series of allegations about Professor Lavalette, Liverpool Hope University and the appointment of a PhD student.

As Professor Lavalette knew one of the candidates for a part-time PhD place he backed off from the recruitment process. Two proposals were reviewed by four professors (three from Hope and one from an external university) and four members of staff in the Social Work Department. For clarification, none of these people were members of the Socialist Workers Party.

The eight reviewers all thought the University should accept both proposals.

The two applicants were then offered places at Liverpool Hope University. One of these is a qualified social worker and is based in the Department of Social Work. The other is based in another Department at Liverpool Hope.

The version of the appointment of these PhD students that has appeared on the web is therefore quite inaccurate. The University and Professor Lavalette believe it is libellous and they would ask you to remove your post and stop your campaign. The University and Professor Lavalette reserve the right to pursue legal means if you fail to do so.

Kind regards

Graham Donelan
University Secretary
Liverpool Hope University

 

[discokermit]

My bottle or membership status aren't relevant although as it goes you're wrong.

have you rejoined?

some people joined in '68, exciting times.
some people joined because of the miners strike.
some the poll tax.
some because of stop the war.
bolshie though, was reinvigorated by a botched cover up of rape/sexual harrasment by a cc member and the persecution of the two complainants.

say it ain't so.

 

[discokermit]

this kind of reaction makes no sense. The people who just want to get on with building the party are backing a strategy that cannot allow them to do that.

some of them are just plain fucking thick.

The SWP is completely and utterly finished in terms of its ability to recruit and retain young people now. It will only be able to recruit on the basis of ignorance, and even those who start out ignorant will have access to google and will encounter feminist activists, other left activists, etc. It is already facing a massive problem in terms of its age demographics, so it's not as if they can just wait and hope that it eventually gets easier at some point years down the road.

even the fifty something rapists will be put off now that seventeen year old women won't be joining.

 

[Pickman's model]

have you rejoined?

some people joined in '68, exciting times.
some people joined because of the miners strike.
some the poll tax.
some because of stop the war.
bolshie though, was reinvigorated by a botched cover up of rape/sexual harrasment by a cc member and the persecution of the two complainants.

say it ain't so.

an aroused worker, as it were

 

[KeeperofDragons]

Yes, I think that you are right.

Even from the cynical point of view of somebody only capable of prioritising the good of the SWP, this kind of reaction makes no sense. The people who just want to get on with building the party are backing a strategy that cannot allow them to do that.

The SWP is completely and utterly finished in terms of its ability to recruit and retain young people now. It will only be able to recruit on the basis of ignorance, and even those who start out ignorant will have access to google and will encounter feminist activists, other left activists, etc. It is already facing a massive problem in terms of its age demographics, so it's not as if they can just wait and hope that it eventually gets easier at some point years down the road.

The only possible way out is to apologise, grovel and serve up the heads of the entire leadership ( who surely have it coming for gross incompetence even if our pragmatist isn't worried about their political or moral stances). That may not work, but at least they have some kind of shot on that basis.

And talking of building the party as that is the only thing the CC seem to think conference is about - well guys this will be the only way there is a hope in hell of doing that and only a small one at that.

It's no use them bewailing that an internal matter is all over the internet, thier actions guaranteed that this would happen. The only way out now is to have a proper open debate in conference and then have an open vote on where we go from here. As a party we have fucked up and as a party we can sort this fuck up out and make it up to the women that have made the rape complaints for making thier lives hell as is only right an proper.

edited - sort out is better way of putting it than "correct"

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Note the threat of legal action is from Lavalette, not Smith. If the process used actually was as described in the letter, it would be tricky to defend against. Not that I think he'll actually go to the courts and make a bigger noise.

 

[cesare]

Note the threat of legal action is from Lavalette, not Smith. If the process used actually was as described in the letter, it would be tricky to defend against. Not that I think he'll actually go to the courts and make a bigger noise.

The threat's from the uni too.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

The threat's from the uni too.

Yes, but its not as clear what the university's grounds would be. They may be indicating that they would back their employee.

 

[cesare]

Yes, but its not as clear what the university's grounds would be. They may be indicating that they would back their employee.

It might be that the uni are saying that their funding process/procedure is being called into question, affecting their reputation.

 

[killer b]

surprised lavalette has any confidence in bourgeois justice etc etc...

 

[Nigel Irritable]

It might be that the uni are saying that their funding process/procedure is being called into question, affecting their reputation.

Yes. It really isn't clear, although it's not hard to work out what Lavalette's claim would be. His most obvious problem would be working out who to sue. The reason for the lack of clarity is probably that it's intended to shut people up without going near a court.

 

[cesare]

Yes. It really isn't clear, although it's not hard to work out what Lavalette's claim would be. His most obvious problem would be working out who to sue. In practice though, it seems unlikely that he'd actually want to end up in court over this.

I can't imagine Delta would relish court proceedings either.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I can't imagine Delta would relish court proceedings either.

Lavalette could sue only on the basis of things that were particularly stated about him and the process used to select phd students. He wouldn't have to bring the truth or otherwise of the claims made about Delta into it at all. Still though, there would inevitably be noise made, which would be, as you say, very unwelcome, to Delta, the university etc.

 

[cesare]

Lavalette could sue only on the basis of things that were particularly stated about him and the process used to select phd students. He wouldn't have to bring the truth or otherwise of the claims made about Delta into it at all. Still though, there would inevitably be noise made, which would be, as you say, very unwelcome, to Delta, the university etc.

If Lavalette sued, the defendant ("who" being your very good point earlier) would presumably defend by way of a very detailed account of the circumstances justifying their allegations, including witnesses. It could get very messy indeed - the sexual abuse allegations being aired in court via a civil case rather than criminal. I doubt Lavalette, the uni, the SWP or delta would enjoy the experience.

 

[butchersapron]

Surely the claim for libel would be based on untruths about the lavs professional conduct in who was accepted on the PhD program and the rest of it would not be heard at all. Not that any of this is going to happen I think.

 

[killer b]

Surely the claim for libel would be based on untruths about the lavs professional conduct in who was accepted on the PhD program and the rest of it would not be heard at all. Not that any of this is going to happen I think.

i'd have thunk so. anything about smith would be ignored, like that freeman TV license nutter earlier in the year.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Surely the claim for libel would be based on untruths about the lavs professional conduct in who was accepted on the PhD program and the rest of it would not be heard at all. Not that any of this is going to happen I think.

Yes, that about sums it up.

 

[cesare]

Surely the claim for libel would be based on untruths about the lavs professional conduct in who was accepted on the PhD program and the rest of it would not be heard at all. Not that any of this is going to happen I think.

I suppose it might be a question of who delta has found to supervise him?

 

[Oisin123]

Edit: No, I don't think this applies to him. According to the University's own statement, he's part-time, 'with another department'. Still, his presence in the University is going to be a nightmare for the authorities.

From: http://www.hope.ac.uk/research/postgraduateresearch/doctoralscholarships/

Liverpool Hope University has introduced seven fully funded doctoral scholarship opportunities, which together are worth more than £300,000 over three years.

The scholarships are for the full fees as well as a bursary of £13,500 per year. Doctoral students will be considered for the scholarships in the key research areas of the University such as education, core humanities subjects, education, business and computing, amongst other.

The funding available is equivalent to that offered by the Arts and Humanities Research Council and the Economic and Social Research Council

The scholarships are for the very best students and the University would expect that they would have gained a distinction in their Masters studies.

Successful students would begin their studies at Liverpool Hope from the beginning of September 2012.