Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

SWP expulsions and squabbles

I'd have gone the way to Swindon to drink with you and your imaginary mates who just happen to fit your arguments before, but you, now, i would only travel to pour the petrol on.

You are a disgrace.
 
Last edited:
You I have respect for. So I will tell you what I really think. He didn't rape, he did harass.
So basically you think Stack got it right to begin with? I feel pretty confident to agree with you that he is guilty of harassment, but I am not really in a position to say either way on the rape charge.
 
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.
This won't help much, but amazingly they really do not seem to have thought about this before hand. There was a split on the DC with Stack coming to a different conclusion on the harassment charge. Part of the reason for this is that it looks to me like he was applying a civil standard while the rest where applying criminal. Which is just one more way in which the whole process was an utter farce.
 
Last edited:
You I have respect for. So I will tell you what I really think. He didn't rape, he did harass.

We can all read your post.

You don't actually address the point made that there is seemingly a difference of opinion within the SWP about what constitutes rape. If you think he didn't rape, have you reached that conclusion because you define rape differently from those who think he did when faced with the same evidence?
 
This won't help much, but amazingly they really do not seem to have thought about this before hand. There was a split on the DC with Stack coming to a different conclusion on the harassment charge. Part of the reason for this is that it looks to me like he was apply a civil standard while the rest where applying criminal. Which is just one more way in which the whole process was an utter farce.

I wouldn't trust those clowns to run a bath, nevermind something as serious as a rape investigation. An utter shambles.
 
You I have respect for. So I will tell you what I really think. He didn't rape, he did harass.

The funny thing is that she obviously believes that what happened to her was rape. And she was the one in a position to judge that. Not you.
Do you think women go around saying that they were raped lightly? Have you any idea of the shock, shame and humiliation it entails to say- even to recognise- that you have been raped?
This is a sorry saga and few people come out of it looking good. It's certainly the end of the swp, the bulletin shows that very clearly.
 
The funny thing is that she obviously believes that what happened to her was rape. And she was the one in a position to judge that. Not you.
Do you think women go around saying that they were raped lightly? Have you any idea of the shock, shame and humiliation it entails to say- even to recognise- that you have been raped?
This is a sorry saga and few people come out of it looking good. It's certainly the end of the swp, the bulletin shows that very clearly.

indeed.
 
The funny thing is that she obviously believes that what happened to her was rape. And she was the one in a position to judge that. Not you.
Do you think women go around saying that they were raped lightly? Have you any idea of the shock, shame and humiliation it entails to say- even to recognise- that you have been raped?
This is a sorry saga and few people come out of it looking good. It's certainly the end of the swp, the bulletin shows that very clearly.
As far as bb is concerned nothing has changed since page 1 of this thread. The central committee is right. It is always right. When the central committee said there was no case to answer, there was no case to answer. When the central committee said there was a case to answer, there was a case to answer.
All the proof he needs is provided by the prof. Nothing more is necessary.
Rape denial has been thrown around a lot since this began. Bb has now provided us with a clear definition.
 
As far as bb is concerned nothing has changed since page 1 of this thread. The central committee is right. It is always right. When the central committee said there was no case to answer, there was no case to answer. When the central committee said there was a case to answer, there was a case to answer.
All the proof he needs is provided by the prof. Nothing more is necessary.
Rape denial has been thrown around a lot since this began. Bb has now provided us with a clear definition.

I think you're doing bolshiebhoy a bit of a disservice there.

Apparently (unless I have misunderstood) things have changed enough that he has been inspired to rejoin the party he had previously left, though quite why remains, and is like to remain, a mystery to all but him...
 
He didn't rape anyone, that I'll stake my mortgage, my marriage, my job on. After two years of 'evidence'.
See, this is what this lot have been just waiting to say, it was just lurking there - now they think they're finally on top they can and will say this loudly over and over. At what cost? If a load of middle management desperately recruited returnees come banging in shouting the odds with CC largesse, what will happen?
 
See, this is what this lot have been just waiting to say, it was just lurking there - now they think they're finally on top they can and will say this loudly over and over. At what cost? If a load of middle management desperately recruited returnees come banging in shouting the odds with CC largesse, what will happen?
it will be the end of them.
 
Its already over. Its been over for almost a year.

It's not over until the fat laddie sings...

images
 
Nice bit of macho posturing there.
Is the woman who says she was raped no one then?
There, in a nutshell is why women like myself will never ever rejoin your party and why they deserve to be pariahs of the left from now on

pity you ever did, could never understand their attraction, they were seen as clowns by many in Europe, etc, especially at the European Social Forums, where their posturing was laughable.
 
I was taken aback by a circular issued by PCS which showed the Chair of the unions Equality Committee is to be SWP member Sue Bond and one of the other NEC appointees was uber Callinicos/Smith supporter Marriane Owens.

SWP members taking charge of equality? A disgrace.

Meanwhile I am led to believe there is a motion being put to the PCS Left Unity conference in December for them to "break" with their alliance with the slightly more mainstream PCS Democrats group. It won't get through, but the wrong target methinks.

Given all we now know (including the serious effect of the SWP's treatment of the woman at the centre of the scandal has had on her life), surely they should be considering breaking with the SWP instead.
 
Back
Top Bottom