- This topic has 259 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 6 months ago by Anonymous.
September 21, 2013 at 5:37 pm #96580EdParticipant
OK how about a completely hypothetical situation. What if a member had been suspected of embezzling funds from a branch. But had resigned when the suspicion had become known before action could be taken officially. They then re-apply for membership a couple of months later. Should the E.C, in this situation accept their membership?Following the understanding of the rules stated above they should accept as long as they are a socialist and can complete the questionaire to satisfaction. Even though the party could not trust the individual to act in the party's best interests.Now as I said I think you may have a point about the rules needing to be clearer and more specific. But the way it stands now is that each individual application is subject to ratification by the E.C., which means they must take into account past behavior and the likelihood of that behavior reoccurring.September 21, 2013 at 5:58 pm #96581
Okay, got me rule book out……..no does'nt say anything about "the way it stands now is that each individual application is subject to ratification by the E.C., which means they must take into account past behavior and the likelihood of that behavior reoccurring".Past behaviour and the likelihood that behaviour will recur. No…..nothing in the rule book about that, nor in anything I have come across in my 32 year association with the party.The hypothetical situation you posit, is a bit like the last breath of a dying man, an exercise in pointless futility and bears no relationship to the events that were brought up.And as you said, "suspected embezzling" it is a moot point anyway, as suspicion ain't proof. It's a bit like saying "a suspected vote rigger, these are merely hypotheticals. YFSSteve Colborn.September 21, 2013 at 6:03 pm #96582
By the way Ed, I never made a point about making rules clearer or more specific, you must have me mixed up with someone else. As far as I am concerned the rules are fine as they are. But if "you" are suggesting the rules must be stricter and more draconian, I completely disagree. Are you suggestin this? YFS Steve Colborn.September 21, 2013 at 6:31 pm #96583EdParticipant
A membership application is subject to E.C. ratification. Since you've become hostile again I have nothing left to say to you.September 21, 2013 at 6:43 pm #96584
I have not in any way, become hostile, I am merely debating points with you. If you have taken offence, please believe me such was not my intent and I furthermore apologise for any hurt I may have caused, which I assure you again was not intended. YFSSteve Colborn.September 22, 2013 at 12:45 pm #96585SocialistPunkParticipantEd wrote:A membership application is subject to E.C. ratification. Since you've become hostile again I have nothing left to say to you.
Hi there Ed, I don't wish to cause offence, but the above comment reminds me of many a politician when in a situation they are unable to defend. They have a tendency to stick to the official line and claim the other side are unreasonable, allowing them to extract themselves from the discussion.September 26, 2013 at 12:53 am #96586
"A membership application is subject to E.C. ratification. Since you've become hostile again I have nothing left to say to you."Ed, sorry to be a pain but can you please show, where I have been hostile on this thread? I know I have not been but your accusation labels me! Please show evidence or apologise. I would appreciate a reply.YFSSteve Colborn.PS I think enough time has passed for reflection.September 26, 2013 at 9:15 am #96587jondwhiteParticipant
If Ed has made it clear he does not want to say anything else, then leave it up to other forum readers to judge whether he is justified or not.September 26, 2013 at 9:43 am #96588
Dear JDW, with all due respect, an accusation of hostility toward another Forum user is quite a serious matter, especially given events on this Forum some months ago. Ed did indeed say he did not want to say anything else this, however does not nullify his accusation, nor provide proof of the same.I, myself, merely want clarification of this matter! If my words are seen as hostile, I merely want "proof", so I can moderate my written language to a more accetible level. If this proof is not available, an apology, so that my name is not besmirched unfairly and unreasonably.To make an accusation, then refuse to back it up is, to my mind, wrong.Steve Colborn.October 29, 2013 at 11:55 am #96589
The title of this thread is, "Why would membership of the SPGB be refused". It is an important question and one that would appear to have evolved.It would appear that there are moves afoot to the effect that other matters can be taken into consideration, besides acceptance of the O and DofP and agreement with the same and applicants not being members of, nor advocating the positions of, other political partys.If this is, indeed the case, it leaves open the door to a very slippery slope indeed. Personalisation of applications. Viewing applications not on the facts but on so-called, "past history". Something even Capitalist jurisprudence does not allow. It would even appear that "myth" is taken into account! An ex member reapplying for membership, whose initial form F was defered to allow time for reconsideration of the Form F and which was only accepted at the next EC meeting, is today deemed a wrecker, a spoiler, a troublemaker, even though the facts do not bear this out.It appears that the question posited at the start of this thread is beginning to be answered and the answer is quite scary. Steve Colborn.October 29, 2013 at 9:51 pm #96590SocialistPunkParticipant
Steve, I wouldn't hold your breath for any possible explanations on this forum.If the party decide to go down the route of considering issues other than socialist understanding before allowing people in the party, then the guidelines for entry are gonna be extensive. Can you imagine subjective reasons, the likes of which could be endless, being debated by members of the Membership Applications Committee and the EC, every time a person seeks to join. It would be comical. So to avoid subjective nonsense being rattled out, the party will need a list of specific "do's and don'ts" for prospective members. Perhaps a "three strikes and your not in" policy could be drawn up, based on a list of "do's and don'ts". The party would then have its D of P and along side it a D n D. Perhaps even a pledge of allegiance ceremony could see prospective candidates swear an oath over an old copy of Das Kapital.I think the Leninists in the party have the scent of blood in their nostrils. Embarrassing.October 30, 2013 at 12:44 am #96591
Who was online, when this post was "flagged"? I know, do you who read this? Someone feeling guilty about something? Steve ColbornNovember 3, 2013 at 2:04 am #96592AnonymousInactive
Let's see, here. Threats of violence to fellow socialists. Dumping dozens of e-mails at Head Office unnecessarily. Continually banging on about about how hard-done-by you are. I support the EC decision.November 3, 2013 at 9:11 am #96593PJShannonKeymaster
MODERATION REMINDER:Rule 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.Rule 13. Rule enforcement is the responsibility of the moderators, not of the contributors. If you believe a post or private message violates a rule, report it to the moderators. Do not take it upon yourself to chastise others for perceived violations of the rules.Any further posts in breach of these rules will be removed.November 3, 2013 at 10:27 am #96594AnonymousInactive
Not sure why we suddenly have a moderation reminder. I don't think I've done any of the things mentioned. I'm just saying what lots of other people are thinking. I'm that kind of motherfucker, see?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.