Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

SWP expulsions and squabbles

Belushi said:
Jesus fucking Christ :facepalm:
Click to expand...
Exactly my words. David Renton has confirmed to me on Facebook the veracity of the now infamous Lie quote. He also says: "It's - very - far from the worst that was said all day". So be prepared for worse if that is possible. Jesus fucking Christ.
 
The question is when surely not where. The interesting thing is how little has leaked so far today. When you're debating something face to face and there are at least five or six different shades of opinion present in the room and everyone is trying to influence everyone else the logic of the situation is you don't rush off to bleat it all to people who aren't privy to the discussion and in general are hostile to any constructive outcome of the discussion.
 
What I don't understand about the quote assuming the full quote is correct (and it would still be nice to know what was said immediately before and after so we had some context) is why someone would feel the need to call any of the women in these cases a liar, it's not even logically required for those who want to rehabilitate MS. As far as I can see most of the party, maybe even including a goodly chunk of the opposition, accept the dc's ruling that rape probably didn't take place or at least wasn't proved to have taken place. Even Stack in his minority submission from the first dc didn't believe that the woman's claim that rape had happened had been proved. His argument was that on the balance of probability it was likely that harassment, not rape, had taken place. So clearly Stack and anyone in the opposition who agrees with him are obliged to disagree with the woman's claim that she was raped. Does that make Stack a rape apologist? If the speaker had just said that an accusation of rape isn't enough evidence to convict in itself then most of the party, maybe again even a majority of the opposition, would agree with that. The corollary if you accept the dc's finding on the claim of rape is that the woman didn't completely accurately describe what happened when she used the word rape. Calling her a liar is an unnecessary and insulting step further because it suggests a conscious desire to deceive. And the shit about women and children is just gratuitously offensive. But it has to be possible to say the woman was probably wrong about rape. As I say even Stack is forced to say something like that if he says anything about it. No?
 
Bolshie- the point is, what is the outcome of propagating the opinion that women and children lie about abuse? Who benefits? I'm not surprised by the statement as I've heard them say the same at branch meetings. The debacle has entrenched some very nasty attitudes to abuse.
 
bolshiebhoy said:
The corollary if you accept the dc's finding on the claim of rape is that the woman didn't completely accurately describe what happened when she used the word rape. Calling her a liar is an unnecessary and insulting step further because it suggests a conscious desire to deceive.
Click to expand...

I think she has a right to decide/is the one who would know if she consented or not. Taking advantage of someone while they're drunk is legally rape, just unfortunately it's not taken seriously. But that will change with time I hope.
 
bolshiebhoy said:
What I don't understand about the quote assuming the full quote is correct (and it would still be nice to know what was said immediately before and after so we had some context) is why someone would feel the need to call any of the women in these cases a liar, it's not even logically required for those who want to rehabilitate MS. As far as I can see most of the party, maybe even including a goodly chunk of the opposition, accept the dc's ruling that rape probably didn't take place or at least wasn't proved to have taken place. Even Stack in his minority submission from the first dc didn't believe that the woman's claim that rape had happened had been proved. His argument was that on the balance of probability it was likely that harassment, not rape, had taken place. So clearly Stack and anyone in the opposition who agrees with him are obliged to disagree with the woman's claim that she was raped. Does that make Stack a rape apologist? If the speaker had just said that an accusation of rape isn't enough evidence to convict in itself then most of the party, maybe again even a majority of the opposition, would agree with that. The corollary if you accept the dc's finding on the claim of rape is that the woman didn't completely accurately describe what happened when she used the word rape. Calling her a liar is an unnecessary and insulting step further because it suggests a conscious desire to deceive. And the shit about women and children is just gratuitously offensive. But it has to be possible to say the woman was probably wrong about rape. As I say even Stack is forced to say something like that if he says anything about it. No?
Click to expand...
But this was the problem with the process, it was always going to be a case of her word against his. This is way having the hearing heard by people who personally knew one of the two people involved was the first major fuck up. The second was that they seem to want to apply a criminal rather than civil burden of proof, when it was impossible for that level of evidence to be available in this situation as all they can do is listen to the two accounts and decided which sounds more credible.

Given that she is the only person to truly know if she consented or not, given that while women do lie about rape it is very rare, and given that he would have more reason to lie than her, then I think you have to give the women the benefit of the doubt. But of course if you are looking for ironclad proof that rape took place, a handful of people interviewing a few people 2 years after the incident aren't going to be able to find any.

As I have not heard the two accounts in this particular case I obviously cannot say if I believe a rape took place or note. But when investigating rape I think you should start from the position that the women is probaby telling the truth, especially if outside of the criminal justice system.
 
Last edited:
emanymton said:
But this was the problem with the process, it was always going to be a case of her word against his. This is way having the hearing heard by people who personally knew one of the two people involved was the first major fuck up. The second was that they seem to want to apply a criminal rather than civil burden of proof, when it was impossible for that level of evidence to be available in this situation as all they can do is listen to the two accounts and decided which sounds more credible.

Given that she is the only person to truly know if she consented or not, given that while women do lie about rape it is very rare, and given that he would have more reason to lie than her, then I think you have to give the women the benefit of the doubt. But of course if you are looking for ironclad proof that rape took place, a handful of people interviewing a few people 2 years after the incident aren't going to be able to find any.

As I have not heard the two accounts in this particular case I obviously cannot say if I believe a rape took place or note. But when investigating rape I think you should start from the position that the women is probaby telling the truth, especially if outside of the criminal justice system.
Click to expand...
Reasoned response as always emanymton. So the problem is this. I know it's almost impossible to do but leave to one side the failures in this particular case (failures most recognise). If a political org is to try and deal with accusations of rape without the type of evidence available to a criminal court what do you do? It seems to me that some people, for the best of anti sexist reasons, are very close to saying the accusation in itself should be enough evidence. Because women very rarely lie about rape and because the woman knows what was in her own mind at the time. So the presumption should be guilt? If that's the approach then under what circumstances could the accused be exonerated and allowed to remain a member? De facto that would be expulsion 99.9% of the time on the say so of the woman alone. Can that be right? I know some people think that's preferable to a) not judging rape cases at all or what is still my preferred option of b) listening to both parties and their witnesses and making a call, difficult as that usually is. There were clearly problems with how that last option worked here but I think you improve that process rather than effectively throw it out. And if people are saying you can never question the accuracy of the accuser's version of events then that's what would happen.
 
bolshiebhoy said:
(failures most recognise).
Click to expand...
But that's the problem, isn't it? The majority of there remaining SWP members apparently don't recognise those problems.

And if people are saying you can never question the accuracy of the accuser's version of events then that's what would happen.
Click to expand...
But no one, no one, is saying that.
 
Last edited:
Sorry belboid but I think some are. To even suggest a woman might be wrong is to be a sexist/rape apologist in many minds.
 
bolshiebhoy said:
Reasoned response as always emanymton. So the problem is this. I know it's almost impossible to do but leave to one side the failures in this particular case (failures most recognise). If a political org is to try and deal with accusations of rape without the type of evidence available to a criminal court what do you do? It seems to me that some people, for the best of anti sexist reasons, are very close to saying the accusation in itself should be enough evidence. Because women very rarely lie about rape and because the woman knows what was in her own mind at the time. So the presumption should be guilt? If that's the approach then under what circumstances could the accused be exonerated and allowed to remain a member? De facto that would be expulsion 99.9% of the time on the say so of the woman alone. Can that be right? I know some people think that's preferable to a) not judging rape cases at all or what is still my preferred option of b) listening to both parties and their witnesses and making a call, difficult as that usually is. There were clearly problems with how that last option worked here but I think you improve that process rather than effectively throw it out. And if people are saying you can never question the accuracy of the accuser's version of events then that's what would happen.
Click to expand...
And so the trap I felt myself waking into last night is sprung.

I don't think anyone (well anyone sensible) would want to suggest that these cases are in any way easy. I have mentioned it before but my only comparable experience was being on the jury in a rape case. While it was in some ways very different experience, it was similar in that there was essentially no physical evidence so it came down to who you believed. Deciding I felt he was guilty was probably one of the hardest things I have every done, most of the rest of the jury disagreed with me anyway. The only way I could judge it was to look at where their accounts agreed and to take these as know facts and then see who's narrative of events was a better fit to those facts. In the end I felt confident that her account made sense while his did not. I would assume the disputes committee did something similar.

But what if each gives an equally plausible account of events? It is my opinion that in those cases you must give the benefit of the doubt to the women, especially when it is not a criminal case. Does this mean there is a possibility of an innocent man being expelled an labeled as a rapist? Unfortunately yes, but considering the number of rapes cases investigated by the SWP and other left groups and the number of women who lie about rape, then the risk is quite small, and the alternative of guilty rapists being allowed to remain within parties and possibly within positions of authority is a greater risk. hopefully a decent investigation should be able to spot any ridicules accusations.

I say again these cases are never going to be easy, there are no good answers to the question of what to do.
 
belboid said:
i think they must want to die
Click to expand...
426734_492785427444007_961251738_n.jpg
 
Who are the four? And what were the conference outcomes? (Apart from the one comment we have heard of so far?)
Sometimes women lie. Maybe that's true. Much, much, much more often, as far as I can see or tell, women don't say ANYTHING about rape, harassment, abuse, etc I wonder why THAT is?
 
emanymton said:
I say again these cases are never going to be easy, there are no good answers to the question of what to do.
Click to expand...

Of course not, but there are clearly wrong ways of doing things, such as was done. Note, the rape case that you were on the jury for came about as a result of it being reported to the police. According to a key figure in this clusterfuck odyssey, you were partaking in formal bourgeois morality.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Humberto
British Empire and Slave Trade Reparations
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
156
Views
6K
krtek a houby
krtek a houby
YouSir
Social Media and Current Events
2 3 4
Replies
102
Views
4K
BigMoaner
BigMoaner
P
Sara Sharif murder: ‘sadist’ father and stepmother jailed for life
16 17 18 19 20
Replies
593
Views
16K
e.g.g.
e.g.g.
burtabraham
  • Poll
Should there be an elected second chamber, and how should it be elected?
2 3
Replies
63
Views
2K
Puddy_Tat
Puddy_Tat
Bingoman
Sue Gray and therese Coffey nominated for a peerage
2 3 4
Replies
91
Views
2K
stavros
S
Back
Top Bottom