SWP expulsions and squabbles

[cesare]

The funding's tax free too, isn't it?

 

[killer b]

do you have any evidence to suggest he's being funded under that scheme?

 

[Nice one]

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.

libel claims are almost always based on reputation (or loss of) rather than the truth/untruth of anything said or done.

 

[butchersapron]

In this case, of Lavelette - not Smith.

 

[SpineyNorman]

libel claims are almost always based on reputation (or loss of) rather than the truth/untruth of anything said or done.

But if you can prove that the accusations that are said to have damaged someone's reputation are true wouldn't the claim be thrown out regardless of impact on reputation? (I get that in most cases this will be near impossible)

In this case I don't think it has any chance of getting that far re: Delta's alleged rape assuming what Lavalette (sp?) says about not being involved in the selection process though.

 

[Nice one]

But if you can prove that the accusations that are said to have damaged someone's reputation are true wouldn't the claim be thrown out regardless of impact on reputation? (I get that in most cases this will be near impossible)

In this case I don't think it has any chance of getting that far re: Delta's alleged rape assuming what Lavalette (sp?) says about not being involved in the selection process though.

yes and no, but mostly no.

 

[SpineyNorman]

yes and no, but mostly no.

Care to elaborate on that?

 

[cesare]

But if you can prove that the accusations that are said to have damaged someone's reputation are true wouldn't the claim be thrown out regardless of impact on reputation? (I get that in most cases this will be near impossible)

In this case I don't think it has any chance of getting that far re: Delta's alleged rape assuming what Lavalette (sp?) says about not being involved in the selection process though.

Libel's about falsity and maliciousness of the allegation as well as whether reputational damage was actually the outcome.

 

[discokermit]

strange how when it comes to prosecuting a rape claim against a cc member, the swp have no faith in bourgeois justice, yet when lavalette thinks his reputation is under threat or callinicos wants to stop renton calling him a liar, they don't hesitate in threatening the bourgeois courts.

 

[Nice one]

Care to elaborate on that?

the truthfulness of any statement is always going to be an excellent defence against claims of libel, but it's not always that clear cut. For example the angry women website the libel against michael lavalette wouldn't be so much that he brought martin smith to hope univeristy (which can be shown to be either true or false) but that in doing so he put women students at the univeristy in danger.

 

[emanymton]

For the record I have heard from a fairy reliable source that Lavalette didn't have anything to do with delta's phd.

 

[Oisin123]

For the record I have heard from a fairy reliable source that Lavalette didn't have anything to do with delta's phd.

The relevant phrase from the University's letter is: As Professor Lavalette knew one of the candidates for a part-time PhD place he backed off from the recruitment process.

As someone has just observed on Facebook, there is something odd about this formulation. 'Backed off' is unusual and ambiguous. '... he informed the University and took no part in' would be stronger and clearer. So my guess would be that he did, in fact, have something to do with the awarding of a (funded?) place, up to a point.

I'm curious now also about his referees. And also as to whether he does now hold a masters. That should be public domain somewhere...

 

[butchersapron]

Very odd phrasing. He either knew him before the process started (and so shouldn't have been part of it) or he came to know him during the process (we know this isn't true). Maybe he just forgot then his memory was jogged when it became public.

 

[butchersapron]

Does anyone happen to now the standard of proof that was required for the charges to be substantiated? Would his guilt have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, or just on the balance of probabilities? The former being the standard in criminal trials; the latter being more common in staff conduct procedures.

I would suspect that there was no standard of proof outlined and understood by all beforehand.

A CC member read out the legal definition of rape – saying that this would be the DC benchmark. At no point was there any sense that the DC was ill equipped to attempt to make a judgment on a rape allegation

Pre-conference bulletin 2 (pdf) p.64

 

[emanymton]

The relevant phrase from the University's letter is: As Professor Lavalette knew one of the candidates for a part-time PhD place he backed off from the recruitment process.

As someone has just observed on Facebook, there is something odd about this formulation. 'Backed off' is unusual and ambiguous. '... he informed the University and took no part in' would be stronger and clearer. So my guess would be that he did, in fact, have something to do with the awarding of a (funded?) place, up to a point.

I'm curious now also about his referees. And also as to whether he does now hold a masters. That should be public domain somewhere...

The story as I have heard it was that Lavalette was asked if he knew him, he said yes and therefore didn't want to be involved, which rather fits universities letter.

To be clear Lavalette told this to someone who then told me, and I don't see why Lavalette would have any reason to lie to that person.

 

[butchersapron]

Indeed, why would anyone not ever tell the full truth about stuff that could damage them?

 

[emanymton]

Indeed, why would anyone not ever tell the full truth about stuff that could damage them?

I didn't say he had no reason to lie, I said I don't think he would have reason to lie to this particular person. It is of course possible that he did, but I think it is unlikely.

 

[Athos]

Pre-conference bulletin 2 (pdf) p.64

Thanks. But it doesn't really clarify what standard of proof the DC applied. I suspect that you're right that this hadn't been properly established beforehand. But it's a crucial question. There's a big difference between him being cleared if, for instance, the panel believed that it was 90% sure he'd done it, but applied the criminal standard (i.e. beyond reasonable doubt), and him being cleared if they felt that he probably didn't do what was alleged i.e. they were less than 50% sure he had done it, and applied the civil standard - the balance of probabilities.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

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.

Best you join N.I. In the sp then

 

[bolshiebhoy]

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.

You I have respect for. So I will tell you what I really think. He didn't rape, he did harass.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

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.

You missed the main point where I admitted to rejoining. ad hominem as it was.

 

[butchersapron]

I didn't care. The logic: unquestioned.

 

[butchersapron]

You I have respect for. So I will tell you what I really think. He didn't rape, he did harass.

Based on what evidence? As a member you should be expelled for saying this - does these rules not count for you then

 

[bolshiebhoy]

He didn't rape anyone, that I'll stake my mortgage, my marriage, my job on. After two years of 'evidence'.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Based on what evidence? As a member you should be expelled for saying this - does these rules not count for you then

They does

 

[butchersapron]

They does

So report yourself to the latest mainwairing.

 

[butchersapron]

He didn't rape anyone, that I'll stake my mortgage, my marriage, my job on. After two years of 'evidence'.

What evidence have you seen?

 

[bolshiebhoy]

What evidence have you seen?

same as you boss

 

[butchersapron]

same as you boss

I think you better go to bed. If the lack of evidence that i have seen is enough for you to clear martin smith of rape, then maybe you would be an ideal future DC candidate.

Your joining. lolhollowlol

 

[bolshiebhoy]

I'll go to bed when I feel like it pal. You'll need more evidence than you have.