butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Let it all out. SWP! SWP! SWP!
Socialist my arse.
Socialist my arse.
I hope you're never a juror.He didn't rape anyone, that I'll stake my mortgage, my marriage, my job on. After two years of 'evidence'.
sounds horribly familiarThe reason for the lack of clarity is probably that it's intended to shut people up without going near a court.
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.You I have respect for. So I will tell you what I really think. He didn't rape, he did harass.
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.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.
You I have respect for. So I will tell you what I really think. He didn't rape, he did harass.
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.
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.
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.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.
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?He didn't rape anyone, that I'll stake my mortgage, my marriage, my job on. After two years of 'evidence'.
you're disgusting.He didn't rape anyone, that I'll stake my mortgage, my marriage, my job on. After two years of 'evidence'.
it will be the end of them.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?
I think so. If they are planning that - and bbs behavior suggest they are, it's yet another piece of ineptness, this time probably fatal.it will be the end of them.
Its already over. Its been over for almost a year.it will be the end of them.
Its already over. Its been over for almost a year.
Fair enough to have no attachment to your mortgage and job. But your marriage?He didn't rape anyone, that I'll stake my mortgage, my marriage, my job on.
He didn't rape anyone, that I'll stake my mortgage, my marriage, my job on. After two years of 'evidence'.
Wha? Fortunately, as you might recall, the Irish SWP is a different party.Best you join N.I. In the sp then
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
Wha? Fortunately, as you might recall, the Irish SWP is a different party.