[alanjjohnstone]

No harm in adding your name though. I have. I notice a few known suspects have signed

[alanjjohnstone]

Conflicting sources on numbers , I'm afraid,  Adam, but certainly they all agree that free blacks were a small minority compared with the enslaved and "free" was very relative and conditional depending on the state. The South antebellum is divided into Upper (Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas, border states of Kentucky, Missouri, West Virginia, Maryland, or Delaware)  and Lower (or the Deep South – the cotton states) –  Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina.It is estimated that by 1860 there were about 1.5 million free blacks in the southern states.http://www.ushistory.org/us/27d.aspThe first federal census (1790) recorded nearly 60,000 free blacks and more than 690,000 slaves. By 1860 the number of free blacks rose to nearly 490,000. Free blacks were either offspring of free parents, immigrants, or former slaves. Restricted in their movement and denied by law and custom many basic rights, the lives of free blacks were often similar to those of slaves. According to the 1790 census, about 90% of African Americans lived in the South, but nearly half of the free blacks, around 27,000, lived in the North. By the turn of the century virtually all African Americans in the North had been freed from slavery.http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100402104839AAfy8moIn 1860  Upper South – free slaves 183,369 3.1% Lower South 67,418 1.1% whereas slaves were 20.5% and 43.1% of the population respectively. The Upper South had more free blacks than the North and about 10% possessed property.http://www.bowdoin.edu/~prael/lesson/tables.htmMaryland number of ownerless blacks was at 90,000, and on the increase -http://www.nytimes.com/1860/02/17/news/the-south-and-the-free-blacks.htmlThe proportion of free blacks went from one percent before the Revolution to 10 percent by 1810 in the Upper South. By 1860, on the eve of the American Civil War, 91 percent of blacks in Delaware were free, and 49.7 percent of blacks in Maryland.http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Free+blackBy 1776, approximately 8 percent of African Americans were free. By 1810, 4 percent of blacks in the South (10% in the Upper South), and 75 percent of blacks in the North were free. On the eve of the Civil War, free blacks comprised about 10% of the population.https://www.boundless.com/history/slavery-and-reform-1820-1840/slavery-in-u-s/free-blacks-in-south/Were free blacks offered the same rights as free whites? The answer is quite simply no. Free blacks throughout the South were banned from possessing firearms, or preaching the Bible. Later laws even prohibited Negroes who went out of state to get an education from returning. In many states, the slave codes that were designed to keep African-Americans in bondage were also applied to free persons of color. Most horrifically, free blacks could not testify in court. If a slave catcher claimed that a free African-American was a slave, the accused could not defend himself in court.http://www.inmotionaame.org/migrations/topic.cfm;jsessionid=f8301140001360747058941?migration=7&topic=2&bhcp=1Virginia was one of a number of Southern states whose laws required that a freed slave must leave the state within a year of emancipation.States like North Carolina prohibited free African Americans from entering their territory. In several states, including Maryland, free blacks convicted on the most minor charges were sold into slavery. In 1858, one free black man in South Carolina was convicted for stealing a pot valued at less than a dollar; he escaped after he was delivered to a slave dealer for sale. In the 1850s, Charleston's free African Americans were forced to wear badges in order to work, and their entrance into the mechanical trades was severely limited. In Washington, D.C., they were subject to curfews and other restrictions. In Charleston and New Orleans, black sailors were imprisoned during the time their ships were in port to prevent them from making contact with local bondspeople. In 1859, South Carolina's legislature established the Committee on the Colored Population, which seriously considered enslaving all the state's free African Americans.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_negroWiki says – There were a number of free blacks in the South, mainly in the cities. During the nineteenth century, the population of free blacks in the South shrunk as a significant portion of the free black population migrated northward.This migration even moved some of the more prominent and talented free black figures out of the southern caste of free Negroes into the North, draining the south of potential free black leaders.Many free African American families in colonial North Carolina and Virginia became landowners and a few of them also became slave owners. In some cases, this was in order to protect members of their own families, whom they purchased from other owners. In other cases, they participated in the full slave economy. For example, a freedman named Cyprian Ricard purchased an estate in Louisiana that included 100 slaves.Some even became freemasons !!  http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/aaohtml/aopart2.htmlNew Orleans had its own particular free black social system. Free people of color, or gens de couleur libre, played an important role in the history of New Orleans and the southern part of the state, former Louisiana Territory.Within free black marriages, many women were able to participate more equally in their relationships than elite white women. This potential for equality in marriage can be seen through the example of the "colored aristocracy" of the small black elite in St. Louis, where women were often economic partners in their marriages. These small groups of blacks were descended from African or French and Spanish mixed marriages. Under the French, the women in these marriages had the same rights as white women and could hold property. These black women hoped to remain financially independent both for themselves and for the sake of protecting their children from Missouri’s restrictive laws.Not included in any of the statistics are the maroons, slaves who had escaped and lived in areas outside settlements. Nor those  "living as free" with the permission of their master, sometimes in return for payment of rent or a share of money they earned by trades, but their owner had never officially registered their liberty.

[alanjjohnstone]

A related blog post of interest. http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2013/01/14/exclusive-exploding-the-lincoln-myth-by-rocket-kirchner/#more-140490"Books like The Real Lincoln by Thomas Dilorenza, or Lincoln Reconsidered by David Donald, not to mention Gore Vidal’s work on Lincoln, would never be allowed anywhere near a public school. Anyone who knows me knows that I despise any kind of racism or slavery. But the Lincoln presidency had nothing to with that. Just as losing our rights today has nothing to do with fighting terrorism. Abe and his cronies had one goal in mind: consolidating federal power for themselves. Lincoln was never an abolitionist. In 1850 he supported the Fugitive Slave Act, and in 1861 he refused to support liberated slaves. His agenda was British style mercantilism. Pure and simple."

[alanjjohnstone]

The current melt-down of the SWP has over-shadowed the collapse of the United Left Alliance in the Irish Republic.  The Workers and Unemployed Action Group withdrew from the alliance on 2 October 2012 following disagreements with the other parties. The Socialist Party have now left the alliance on January 2013.The United Left Alliance in Ireland was launched in January 2010 by the Socialist Party, the Socialist Workers Party/People Before Profit (SWP/PBP), the Workers Unemployed Action Group (WUAG) and some independents. It was formed supposedly to offer a united opposition to the government’s austerity programme and to lay the foundation for a new left-of-centre party as an alternative to the official Labour Party. It had 5 TDs in the Dail.Whatever socialist language used, it is clear that the ULA advocate reformist measures ideas to the working class based on state regulation of capitalism with some re-distribution.Clare Daly TD resigned from the SP because of her connection with her defence of property developer, building contractor and Independent TD Mick Wallace, who was a member of the ULA. He had allegedly evaded payment of €1.4million in VAT. Daly refused to distance herself from Wallace and resigned from the SP.SP/ULA TD Joe Higgins refused to call for Wallace to resign, despite calls from Seamus Healy (UWAG) and others for him to do so. Higgins first insisted that the ULA was being targeted by the “right-wing media”. Wallace was “different to the political establishment having opposed the invasion of Iraq in 1993 and opposed the austerity measures against working class people. Richard Boyd Barrett, the leading light in the SWP and of People Before Profit, stated evasively that it was “up to the people of Wexford” whether Wallace should resign his seat in the Dail.The concept of false unity of united fronts and broad alliances has often been covered by ourselves but the connection with the SWP issue is the more fundamental one of  the practice of democratic centralism. This article in the Irish Left review provides some insights. " democratic centralism as the key notion that a group or party will have a discussion on an issue and eventually make a decision whether by a vote, a delegate assembly or by the election of representatives.  If the vote is contentious the losers should agree to commit to the majority line externally while being free to push for their own line internally. Moreover every effort should be made to hold such debates publically in front of both the party membership and class, this may not be possible in all situations, but it is in most. This conception of democratic centralism is sensible notion of how to organise any serious collective group who are bound to have disagreements." It then qualifies it with a caveat " The discussion needs to happen before [his emphasis] the decision is made and members should have the option to express their view democratically whether through direct voting, delegation or representation. This does not happen, what tends to happen is a leadership executive body makes a decision and then passes that decision onto the membership. Democratic centralism then resembles the Stalinist notion of just doing what you are told. In some organisations you are perfectly free to discuss the issue and it will be ‘patiently explained’ to you by an executive member. But the key fact is the decision is made and the only option for the member who disagrees is to withdraw their labour, whether in a conscious mode or by dropping out."The article concludes:"The heretofore dominant existing structural and leadership models of the Irish (mainly Trotskyist) left are in my opinion not fit for purpose. I am convinced political and trade union activists will not join any party they have no say in, whether led by distant TDs or a secretive executive body. The time to have an open an honest discussion on the structures and method of the Irish left is long overdue."The full article is well worth a read. http://www.irishleftreview.org/2013/01/09/structure-democracy-irish-left-call-discussion/ I found this exchange in the comments of interest."people couldn't care less if the Dail and the other hollowed-out institutions of representative democracy are done away with.""how would you ascertain that the country’s democratic structures are widely seen as illegitimate?The 2011 election had 70.0% turnout of the electorate, 2007 had 67.0%. I think the argument is overstated. This is not a dictatorship where institutional change is impossible.The development of non-party organisational forms as vehicles for expressing dissent probably indicates the weakness, narrowness and unparticipatory nature of left political formations, not the illegitimacy of the system as a whole. ""This notion that ”the working class arnt concerned with democracy” or are beyond a response to the crisis is grade a bullshit. Its a gross misunderstanding at best, a blatant excuse for the continuation of sectarian restrictions imposed on the rest of us by the wannabe vanguard at worst.""I don’t agree with Mick saying that ‘people couldn’t care less if the Dail and the other hollowed-out institutions of representative democracy are done away with’. However I think there is widespread acceptance that representative democracy is the alpha and omega of politics, politics is something done by politicians, and your participation in politics is simply the casting of a vote every now and again and getting ‘represented’. That conception of political activity is a barrier to the kind of mass movement that most people here want to see, and if what takes hold is an assumption that representative democracy really can deliver results, that all you have to do is select the right candidates to take power on your behalf -without any kind of systemic critique undertaken in public, without any kind of rupture with the existing representative order, without any kind of experimentation in democratic forms- then we are on a hiding to nothing.""It is impossible to now at this point to what extent the structures of representative democracy are legtimate vis-av-vis the working class or with the public in general. This would be the kind of thing that social movements imo should be researching. But I do think it is significant that if we look at the organisational forms that the most politically active sections of the working class are generating themselves, they tend not to be political party type structures organised around representative politics and oriented towards state power."" on Identifying legitimacy I think you really need to posit some methodology for checking this. We can’t base our strategy on an assumption that can’t be checked. Participation in elections is one metric, but others are needed. How many people write letters to TDs? How often do protests call for the Government to take or reverse certain actions? On replicating old forms of organisation Sure, it would be silly to say “let’s just do what X group did Y years ago.” But it would be much sillier to say “let’s ignore the past and start over every time”. Just because something is new does not mean it will work. On Power No-one has ‘the truth’, but I’d distrust any socialist who doesn’t have a working hypothesis."

[alanjjohnstone]

Another article by Sasha Lilley that may be of help that you can cull a quote or two from.http://inthesetimes.com/article/14292/catastrophiliacs/"Periods of radical social upheaval have followed economic crises and—especially—war. But there is nothing preordained about this relationship. Immiseration and eroding living standards do not automatically prompt workers to radical collective action. Workers find different ways to cope, some which would not win the approval of the Left. Historically, workers often take actions, even collective ones, to shut other workers out of better jobs based on race, ethnicity, or gender—such as “hate strikes” by white workers against the hiring or promotion of workers of color. Innumerable acts of solidarity and resistance, of course, mark the history of capitalism. But they are not the only recourse to which members of the working class resort in hard times."We have said much the same as the above in a number of articles in the Standard about socialist consciousness not being automatic and arising mechanistically from class struggle. "The liberatory hopes of the past, and the confidence in the collective power of others has given way to the uncertain hope and fear of collapse, befitting our anti-utopian and crisis-fraught times. Even in the darkest of hours, however, it behooves anticapitalists to construct a politics that categorically rejects catastrophism. No amount of fire and brimstone can substitute for the often-protracted, difficult, and frequently unrewarding work of building radical mass movements, even under situations of the utmost urgency."And again this statement echoes our constant refrain of the need for knowledge and education and the importance of possessing a common achievable vision.She also shares our distain (and Bookchin's) for the anti-humanity of Deep Greens

[alanjjohnstone]

I came across this "academic" paper which some will be interested to read. "The Troubling persistence of race in pharmacogenomics"PDF download at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2198545Basically race is used as a surrogate for unknown genetic factors."Not only is general use of racial and ethnic categories in biotechnology patents increasing, subsequent race-specific trials, marketing campaigns, and clinical education are also on the rise. The case of warfarin brings to light a common dynamic underlying driving persistence of racial profiling in biomedicine, even as specific genes are being identified. The experience of warfarin calls into question the entire rationale for using race in the “meantime” between current reality and the promise future of truly individual genomic medicine. It also illustrates the inertial power of race to remain prominent in a conceptual system of biomedical analysis once introduced, especially when buttressed by commercial imperatives. Finally, it shows how race is being constructed as a residual category to explain any “unknown” aspects of drug response, creating a new space for the persistence of race in biomedicine." 

[alanjjohnstone]

When I read Pirani's piece I was minded of a friend at work, an ex-SLL/WRP member. He had his first misgivings about Healy when at a event at the "White House", WRP'S rural retreat, and in walked a very attractive petite young lady. He asked who she was. "That's Gerry's driver" came the reply. As my friend said he would have expected Healy to have some big burly body-guard for a driver, not some slip of a girl.

[alanjjohnstone]

Another article advocating "nice capitalism" against that nasty type of capitalism.http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/01/what-is-progressivism/"…even libertarianism might be considered for inclusion under the progressivist banner."What is it?"Progressivism is not rooted in politics but in principles. The well being of all the people is primary and at the heart of progressivism. People are not at the whim of markets guided by preternatural forces to bring theorized widespread prosperity somewhere in the retreating future. A progressivist society prioritizes meeting the needs of all the people first. There will no underclass and no people falling between the cracks. Under progressivism, there is no acceptable unemployment rate; workers will not be made to suffer because of economists’s hypotheses pinned to a target inflation rate or other recurrent crises within capitalism; the target will be no poverty; there will be no accumulation of material wealth confined to a societal few. Every person who wants a job will have a job that respects the dignity of labor.The needs of humanity are primary and not the needs of businesses."

[alanjjohnstone]

Now posted on our bloghttp://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-socialist-manifesto.html

[alanjjohnstone]

I do not see trangressions of moderation rules, whether accidental or deliberate, as proof that our model is inherently flawed so if on occasion there are exchanges of accusations and abuse, we live with that and moderators do their duty…to moderate it in the best way they see suitable for the specific circumstances, by informal  and formal warnings and *temporary* bans of variable lengths as they see see fit. Not every foul in football is a sending-off offence but some are, not every foul deserves a yellow card but some do. A pattern of  persistent fouling none which merit in itself sanctions can lead to both yellow and red cards. We are actully more "liberal" that we follow the idea of rugby has now adopted…"sin-bins"Brian – "The whole question of internet moderation is an ongoing debate not just within the party but also within the global internet community."Indeed so and within other libertarian organisations, too. "…if this forum was a stand alone organisation whose only connection to the party was through supporting the DoP then the issue of attracting people to the role of moderation becomes much more viable."  Check out Libcom's post guidelines of a *multi-party* forum and some of the disputes that have occured within it to provide some perspective.http://libcom.org/notes/content-guidelines/forums-posting-guidelines"its apparent there are insufficient /*trained moderators*"I have asked this previously. Trained by who and tested by who, to what level of competence? Who in the ID is developing such a process? Who claims the ID are even qualified if they are to undertake such a task?"is never ever going to be resolved under the present circumstances of strictly observing party protocol where only party members can join a department or committee."Oh, so non-members and perhaps even non-socialists will have decision making powers within the party. I have supported out-sourcing certain tasks, technical ones, but no way could I endorse any non-member having a responsibility of policy-making. You agree to a measure. "Simply to open the membership of departments and committees to all and sundry would cause more problems that its worth under the present party rules." But what "present rules" do you envisaged being changed?SP accuses me of "the need to attempt to hurt or humiliate" him. SP can see justification in criticising comrades who embark upon a book-reading club but what is good for the gander is not good for the goose, apparently, when someone disagrees. I am accused of offering a "pathetic" excuse that amounts to " "I'd rather watch my favourite soap opera", becomes "I'd rather read a Marxist book and discuss it on a book club thread among like minded people". Where is the difference?" I provided the difference to his question. I responded to that comment with "If SP cannot distinguish between educating oneself with socialist knowledge and escapism that is a serious problem – for him." I retract nothing and if SP wishes to treat it as a personal affront – so be it. I call it fair comment to his own rather unfair one.He concludes "you might as well turn the party into an online revolutionary reading group."Correct me if i am wrong but there was every liklihood that NE branch was about to be re-started as a viable active branch but because of the arguments on moderation, that possibility is no longer going to happen. Just who are turning the the party into an online reading group rather than concentrating upon the real task of conveying the socialist message??To Steve. Facts first. I have been recently moderated for engaging off-topic on the moderating issue over at Spintcom.In regards to a slip in capitalisation of one word. Both you and SP seize upon it going unmentioned by moderator as an example of his inconsistency and fairness. In comparison to wilful and knowing and unapologetic breaches of rules it's apples and oranges, not in the same category and cannot be compared, unless for malicious purposes as you fully intend it to be.Lastly, you say "Hope you and others do as much over the next 30 years for the cause of Socialism, as we have over the preceeding 30."I am no longer going to be tolerant of this tedious martyrdom-complex you possess. You repeatedly refer to your own contribution to the socialist cause and to the party. Even if I only joined yesterday, and have done nothing in the slightest but sit in my armchair and read a book on Marx, I am and will be an equally valued member of the Socialist Party possessing every privilege to agree or disagree with other comrades without some member boasting of the longevity of his membership or the things they have done in the past.You need an example? Look at your reply to my message on Spintcom:"Do you have no disquiet over what you have witnessed? I need no lessons from you, or anyone else of taking resonsibility for what the party does. 31 years of unfettered and rampant propoganda putting the case for Socialism is proof positive of this….Come back to me mate when you have done what I have done and continue to do! I am not some juvenile, piss-ant complainer, who complains for no reason. My party, my ethos, a new and better society and my contribution and commitment to the same, are being called into question and I will not have that, in any way shape or form, from anyone, you have  not earned the right. Earn it then, question me over my integrity and my commitment to this movement. Nothing else will suffice. I was fighting this "class war", when you were in school or nursery, never, ever question my credentials as a Socialist, no one has that right."http://groups.yahoo.com/group/spintcom/message/14059And what was my crime for such an answer? The temerity of asking you to volunteer to be a moderator and show an example of good moderation.http://groups.yahoo.com/group/spintcom/message/14069You KNOW NOTHING (shouting) of my history or past involvement within the socialist and labour movement. Don't you DARE declare yourself a better socialist than any other member of this party by virtue of your length of membership or amount of activity within it.  My engagement with this thread is at an end, Moderator. I accept the inevitable time-lag that will ensue when I comment on other topics on the forum because of your inevitaable moderation ban (after all, if you don't ban me, its just going to be further proof to some that you and I are co-conspirators in an anti-Geordie alliance).As I said previously, people walk away when talking to brick walls. Here is another one doing it. A look back to all the various threads on moderation show how many well-intentioned comrades have tried to contribute but have decided it to be a lost cause and dropped out.Steve, you can have the last word…for what it is worth!

[alanjjohnstone]

With talk of the trillion dollar coin being produced in the US to deal with their deficit i came across this bit of trivia. The existence of £1 million pound  and £100 million notes.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21145103Apparently they are to provide backing to the Scottish and Northern Irish bank-notes. For every pound an authorised Scottish or Northern Irish bank wants to print in the form of its own notes, it has to deposit the equivalent amount in sterling with the Bank of England. If one of the banks failed as they nearly did a few years ago, the Scots notes would still hold its value.The high value notes are kept for accountancy purposes which seems to me indicates that even the Bank of England does not rely on strokes of a key-board or entries in a written ledger when it comes to the creation of money !!

[alanjjohnstone]

My apologies for capitalising NOT. This was done for emphasis and not for shouting. On Spopen and Spintcom there is just capitalisation or using an *….*  to denote special emphasis since bold or italic is not available for messages. It was a lapse. It was not meant to be malicious shouting but to stress a specific point.It is a matter of opinion that the moderation procedure is broken and flawed. I happen not to think so and I support the proposition that flexibility is required in the way a moderator conducts the task, not rigidity, and any attempt to impose strict rules will only result in future acrimony. The lover in me says it is always a matter of different strokes for different folks. I leave unbending laws and fixed penalties  to bourgeois courts and the lynch mob to those who seize upon any fallibility in the moderator to prove a bias."Who decides what are acceptible limits? At the moment, and this is the problem, it is individual moderators who do so"Am i wrong in stating that the Internet Department and the EC have become embroiled in this debate. That other members have in the past contributed in support of the moderator and reproached the manner of critics have exercised themselves. Just who was it who charged other members of a geographic prejudice, which verges upon accusing them of racism? But to be fair, intemperate and inexcusable language was employed by both sides of the debate at times and is to be regretted."no recommendations, positive or negative, towards the debate." I previously did offer what I saw as a constructive option which was rejected, if you recall. I still stand by that attempt at a solution. In my latest post I gave an example of my own particular approach to changing the rules of a forum."Being fed up and tired with the issue is a pathetic excuse."Hearing the same complaints over and over again and witnessing deliberate and purposeful attempts to de-rail other threads is indeed wearisome."I'd rather watch my favourite soap opera", becomes "I'd rather read a Marxist book and discuss it on a book club thread among like minded people". Where is the difference? "If SP cannot distinguish between educating oneself with socialist knowledge and escapism that is a serious problem – for him.I personally believe the will of the majority of on-line party members has been expressed on this issue. Two members appear not to accept this and have chosen to resign rather than accept it. That is their choice although the full machinery of party democracy has not yet been exhausted. Those members not on computers have not been consulted. This can only be done by conference motion and the ensuing referendum. But if non-branch members cannot convince a particular branch to take up the issue, i can only view it as another piece of evidence that the current situation is the prevailing will of the party. Brian appears to be sympathetic to changing moderation procedure, perhaps by co-ordinating with him, Swansea branch may be persuaded to take up the baton on their behalf for moderation change. The issue can also be raised when the Internet Department make their report to conference.However, if those resigning members think the current disagreement on moderation is one of serious democratic principle and that the party is as such undemocratic and not a fit organisation to promote socialism – so be it. Personally, I think they are throwing the baby out with the bath-water.In one post, the question of trust was raised – I am reminded of the Israeli writer Amos Oz saying you don't actully need to love your neighbours but you do have to get along peacefully with them. You don't need to like your work colleagues but you do need to work alongside them. Within the SPGB you are not required to love, or even like, your fellow comrades but you are expected to co-operate with them in the struggle for socialism.Is this question of moderation practice more important than achieving socialism?

[alanjjohnstone]

Tolstoy said something like:"a philanthropic capitalist is like a kind donkey owner. He will do anything for his donkey – clean it, feed it well – anything but get off its back."

[alanjjohnstone]

"Labour that is directly social, community labour on a large scale, always stands more or less in need of guidance, of a management which can establish harmony among the individual activities, and fulfil the general functions that belong to the movement of the unified productive organism as contrasted with the movements of the independent organs out of which the organism is made up. An individual violinist manages his own affairs ; an orchestra needs a conductor. This function of guidance, superintendence, and arrangement devolves upon capital as soon as the labour subordinated to it becomes co-operative…"(Capital)

[alanjjohnstone]

A moderation queue may simply mean that the moderator is off-line. We can hardly expect a moderator to be on his computer 24/7.This delay maybe is an inconvenience to the person being moderated but personally I think it should be seen as an unavoidable consequence of breaking forum rules and further reason to abide by them.I am engaged in trying to amend the posting rules of the other forum. When a problem arose I first contacted the moderator off-list to explain my grievances and understand his position. He suggested a recourse was to email the Internet Dept and I then contacted the them who explained the recommended procedure, which is to present the changes on the forum for discussion and then later have a online poll to decide yeah or nay to my proposals.I think it is best to wait until the recent exchanges on moderation elsewhere have passed before I begin initiating the process on the other forum. The bitterness of the current moderation disagreement has not been helpful for what I think are necessary amendments to the rules on posting.Quite frankly, many members have tired of the moderation issue. That is why not many have been participating in the debate. Members understandably possess different ideas on priorities. It seems to me that they do NOT view recent disputes on moderation as fundamental to internal party democracy despite what other members may like to think.Again personally, I believe the fact that it has gone on for so long, taken up much of members time and involved party departments and the EC, demonstrates that we take democracy very seriously and every member is permitted free expression (within sensible acceptable limits). I think any reasonable outside third-party would concur with my view.Members have voted with their feet and departed the debate that some so earnestly wish to continue. Soon they will be addressing an empty house as members will no longer read the thread and delete from their inbox the thread's messages.You can only try to flog a dead horse for so long.

[Author]

Posts