SWP expulsions and squabbles
- Thread starter Nigel Irritable
- Start date
Both complainants were highly critical of the procedure itself. You stated we had learnt nothing, I merely refuted with actual documented changes that had been made in response to those criticisms. I could, of course, waffle on with undocumented statements about this or that, but then you'd come back with similar and eventually one of us would lose the will to live. Probably long after everyone else had gone to sleep.
As to what I believe, I think my first post was abundantly clear:
But feel free to keep recycling.
bolshiebhoy
socialism leinster drink
"You're all robots told what to think by your cc" is black and "You're brain dead" is white? Ok.
Is MS a rapist? surely the problem is 99.9% of us aren't qualified to answer that question safely. All we can do is work out which of the people who have seen the evidence we trust. The really head banger moment comes when different people you trust equally (but from different camps) give you opposite answers.
Link?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Please do waffle on, otherwise why would anyone believe you have learnt anything? Everyone knows that procedural changes mean next to nothing by themselves, they are mere symptoms of problems, not causes.
Do you agree that all DC hearings were been conducted with integrity? Even the bit about asking whether the victim 'liked a drink?' Why hasn't the person who asked that question been held to account for it?
If you have really learnt lessons, why is the DC dominated by the Leatherettes, the very people who were most vocal in defending Martin Smith? Are you really trying to tell us that despite recognising the party's problems, you have actually promoted the people (other than Smith) largely responsible for those problems? Can't you see the glaring contradiction?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
but even that says the CC have some brains, which isnt the case now. Amy fucking Leather. Thick as pigshit. Good at bullying tho.
Just reread the transcript (http://socialistunity.com/swp-conference-transcript-disputes-committee-report/). The DC were clearly wrong not to recuse themselves, but allowing for that mistake they tried to hear the case impartially. Given the contradiction in the evidence it's hard to see how a different panel would have decided the case proven one way or the other. That said, having been unable to acquit I'd have been happier if they'd taken the approach that CC members needed to be beyond reproach.
It wasn't about victim blaming. My reading is that it was about the allegation of harassment. A woman used to drinking is likely to be less drunk than one who isn't and thus more able to give full consent. Any approach to a drunk woman would of course be inappropriate for that very reason.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
mien gott
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Really? Really? The person who asked that question (and we all know who it was) should have been expelled. It is not allowed in an actual rape case - and the committee were pretending to follow the legal demands of a trial, but that shows they weren't doing so. The level of proof their report shows they were working too also shows they were not trying to be wholly fair, and looks like they were bending over backwards to defend Smith. As you recognise, it is clear that Smith's behaviour was not 'beyond reproach' which seems to be saying pretty much the same thing as 'he hassled her', otherwise, what did he do?
One of the people that took that decision is still on the CC, at least one other is still a frequent council candidate. Doesn't look much like they were reprimanded in any way for their failures to act in a manner that safeguards the parties interests, does it?
Last edited:
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
350 members nationally? That's one of the more bizarre claims I've seen here in a while. Perhaps 80 and that's assuming some growth.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
They must have had some growth, there were a dozen of them who looked to be in their twenties! Which is 11 more than I've ever seen before.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
Limerick Red
Мы вас похороним!
This is exactly the problem, lay people are not in a position to make these kinds of judgements or assumptions. What you have just assumed is just bonkers to say out loud. The swp thought they could run a criminal investigation, from the sounds of it, by apeing TV courtroom dramas.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
I really don't think that Trappist understands how what s/he is saying comes across. It's just utterly barking, almost exactly the same as the tories with Butler-Sloss. As Judith Orr herself said, the rot goes right to the top. Without anyone being held to account in any way shape or form, why would anyone who knows anything of the case ever trust anything the party has to say? They're put to the test - which comes first, principle or party, and they plumped for party. Without realising, or even thinking about, how it will make them look. And they're still doing it!
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
And this, this is from someone claiming that they and the party have learnt their lesson. Sorry, that last paragraph puts you both right back at the start. (Go directly to jail; do not pass go, do not pick up 200 students).
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Yes, they have had some growth. For twenty years they've been on a long, slow, decline. A core of very dedicated people, almost all male, almost all ex-Militant. They were shored up over the years by importing a few younger sorts from their larger group in Spain until the Spanish group split with them. Then over the last few years they've finally started recruiting some students. Not huge numbers, but enough to make a visible difference in a group that small. I'd say that they've moved well ahead of Workers Power (40?) and are catching up with the AWL (circa 100) in the battle of the runts of the Trot litter.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
The problem with this is that it assumes either that a complainant will be willing to go to the cops or that the organisation concerned should override her wishes and go to the cops themselves. Unless you are willing to assume one of those two things, then organisations do actually have to have some way of dealing with serious allegations of misconduct. That's true of unions, companies, political groups, whatever.
The SWP dealt with the allegations dreadfully, but that doesn't mean that saying "none of our business" was an alternative.
bolshiebhoy
socialism leinster drink
Again not original belboid. Shaw bemoaned the 1970's swp's "“seriously depleted intellectual forces”. Be honest, this tack isn't new, nothing the people leaving the party and their external pals are accusing it of are new.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
having just read thru Birchall's reply, it would appear Shaw's criticisms aren't really what you are claiming. They don't mean the same thing at all.
Limerick Red
Мы вас похороним!
Absolutely not, what I suggested on this thread ages ago was going to someone like the association of socialist lawyers or similar and get independent sympathetic professionals to investigate, who are well aware of peoples issues with the state.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
I'm not sure about the workability of it, but fair enough, you are proposing an alternative.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Should be involved covers a lot of ground. More specifically are you saying that the SWP should have gone to the cops against the wishes of the complainant?
If some aggrieved comrade had sneaked into the profs Mayfair abode (;-) one dark night following an acrimonious cc meeting, and bumped him off with a ball pane hammer, would it have been acceptable for a committee of mates to investigate the matter? Would it buggery. It wouldn't matter if the profs best friend and bed partner was ideologically opposed to getting the cops in, it would be the least bad option for the party, and for any future it might have.
comrade spurski
Well-Known Member
But this is where defenders of the swp part waters with everyone else....
Imagine that you are in a workplace...
- a 48 year old manager is accused by a 17 year old female member of staff of sexual harassment and it is pretty much ignored. At a staff meeting where the woman is not present, the manager is allowed to make a speech and fellow managers and staff give him a rousing ovation. The manager has a slight change of role but continues to be a high ranking manager.
- Then several months later the same member of staff alleges the manager raped her ... the managers long standing colleagues and friends investigate and find he didn't rape her (effectively calling her a liar) after questioning her on her drinking and relationship history.
- When staff start to complain and query what is happening they are told to shut up by the other managers. Then another woman comes forward and claims sexual abuse from the same manager...she is forced from her job and told to work else where as her allegations have made it too difficult for others to accept her back in her previous role...no investigation into her allegations take place but she is questioned about her drinking habits.
- Other staff are then sacked for discussing their concerns with colleagues via email
- Staff concerned with the list of events demand a staff meeting which is gerrymandered by managers to ensure that many staff can not attend and as a result they get a vote of confidence
- lots of staff leave, the press and internet reaction is negative and growing each day and roughly 18 months after the initial allegations the manager is removed as a manager but still kept on in the organisation with lots of support by the top managers
- Another meeting is won after the story hits the national press...he finally leaves the organisation...goes on to study at a university (where a keen champion of the company involved is also a lecturer)
- after he leaves the second complaints allegations are looked at and it is decided that if the manager was ever to reapply for a job then he has a case to answer but as he has left nothing can be done
- After a staff meeting 3 months later the following statement is made....
Furthermore the central committee (CC) made a statement that many people have suffered real distress as a result of taking part in or giving evidence to the disputes committee, or due to slurs on the internet and we are sorry to all of them for that.
Specifically two women who brought very serious allegations suffered real distress.
We are sorry for the suffering caused to them by the structural flaws in our disputes procedures, the way in which the two cases became a subject of political conflict within the party and slurs on the internet.
Now considering all of the above, would you or any other SWP member consider;
a) that this statement constitutes as serious heart felt apology?
b) that any organisation could be so incompetent in the first place to fuck up so badly?
c) that it be fair the managers responsible for the fuck up (not only the abuser) havent been removed from their positions?
d) that the company had made ammends?
The answer is no to all of these.
Now consider how much worse it is that a REVOLUTIONARY SOCIALIST party behaved in this way...
No SOCIALIST should have fucked it up in the first place...it's not hindsight to point this out...the defending of the SWP on here is stunning in its arrogance to be honest
Last edited:
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
the difference there being that, the victim is dead, and cant have any objection to police involvement. Not the case when it's rape.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
especially when we remember the words of one DC member - "I'll say sorry, but I wont apologise"
Similar threads
