[Bijou Drains]

robbo203 wrote:

Steve, Could you possibly address the question I raised in post 102 and amplified by Tim  in post 107? How have you disassociated yourself from such sentiments expressed by the SCP?

I will reiterate, there is a world of difference between a Parish Council and a Town Council, anyone with any experience in Local Government will confirm this. Seaham town Council has a budget for £1.1milionSteve Colborn was elected on a POLITICAL MANIFESTOThat Manifesto included support for children to join the Army, Navy and Air Cadets, It also supported the maintenance of war Memorials to "our fallen heroes".Now either Steve Colborn did not support those aims and was unaware of them, Or he did know of them and eithera) supported them, a position which is INCOMPATIBLE with the SPGB,orb) he deliberately mislead the voters in Seaham that he did support these proposals, where in fact he didn't.In this case Steve Colborn should either:a) Resign from the SPGB as he CLEARLY holds views that are incompatible with the party case on war.orb) Resign his seat on the Town Council, in which case, I for one would put this whole situation down to experience and welcome a committed and passionate Cde back into the fold and forget the whole thing happened.The ball is in your court, Steve.

[Bijou Drains]

gnome wrote:

ALB wrote:

are parish councils part of the machinery of government or more residents' committees?

The position of Steve Colborn is not quite as clear cut as some members would have us believe.  OK, he joined and was elected as a member of another organisation, but is the Seaham Community Party "political" in the sense we in the Socialist Party understand that description?  More to the point; have his actions been "detrimental" to the interests of the Party?  At this stage I'm much more concerned about those members, and there have been a few, particularly on Facebook, who have openly expressed their preference, even support in one or two cases, for one of the main, and avowedly, capitalist parties.

If any member is unsure as to whether this bunch are or are not a political party, they might want to follow the following link to their Party manifestohttps://business.facebook.com/1729444613994237/photos/pcb.1839622036309827/1839621816309849/?type=3&theaterA couple of points that might be of interest to those that consider that this is the equivilant of the allotment society, might be interested in the following:from 2nd papargraph page 3"Support that army, navy and air cadets"further down the same page"Work with the British Legion to protect our war memorials and make provision to remember our fallen heroes"2nd papragraph from the bottom of the same page:"Investment to improve Church Street shopping facilities/shop frontage and the Friday market, to support local businesses and tourist attractions to bring in revenue and attract investment"This is the manifesto Steve Colborn was elected on. If this was the equivilent of the residents' association, why did the same party stand candidates for the County Council as well as the Town Council.Remember there is a world of difference between a Parish Council, as has been mentioned and a Town Council representing 21,500 people and holding a budget of nearly £1.1 Million This is not the Village Green Preservation Society!

[Bijou Drains]

SteveThe only person you're kidding is yourself. I hope you enjoy your time trying to make capitalism work better.I look forward to your success in making Seaham Harbour the go to tourist destination and that you feel that by maintaining the monuments glorifying capitalism's wars, that you are "achieving something now". I presume that you will be attending the Seaham Town Council's Paschendale Centenary Last Post at the Cenotaph in Seaham, on 30th July, as proposed by your new political party.

[Bijou Drains]

steve colborn wrote:

Immplicated in what, pray tell? "Socialist joins non-political group of local people to oppose a Labour Council, to concerned with themselves and their self-image, to care about the community"!That, in a nutshell, is what this is/was about. For your further information, it was April of "this" year, not 2016, so it had not "been long planned", with or without telling anyone!In point of fact, I was one of those who would have resigned, supposing we had made a clean sweep of all seats, thus reducing the Councils bill for councillors expenses by 10, those being the number that would have stood down.Furthermore, if Seaham Community Party had any political leaning, I would not have given my support. Their one interest is Seaham and whats best for us all. It was/is a chance to democratise a Council, insofar as anything can be democratic in this Capitalist shit hole of a world.After being tipped off about posts on the Forum, regarding myself, I thought I would peruse them myself! What I have read are comments that do no service to those that have made them.No one on this forum has the right to question my Socialist credentials, no one. Nor from the Party at large. I am as much a Socialist now, as I was 36 years ago when I first joined The Party. I still put the case for Socialism at every possible oppurtunity, wheresoever I find myself.I am still the same Socialist who has written thousands of letters to the press, talked for hundreds of hours on local radio phone in programmes and assisted in delivering 10's of thousands of leaflets/manifestos over the years, as well as contesting elections on our behalf a couple of dozen times at least.If I had been involved with the initial setting up of the SCP (Seaham Community Party), I would have urged that they name change to the Seaham Community Action Group, but the action had already been taken on the name.I am not trying to say that all in the SCP are buddiong Socialists, they aren't but what they are, are ordinary folk, prepared to put their heads above the parapets and challenge the totally undemocratic Labour stranglehold on Seaham.If any of the above offends anyone, or if they cannot understand why I have done, what I have done, then know this, no one is more offended than myself, when I read the pathetic insults thrown my way!I have been on the "sharp end" of some insulting crap on here/spopen/spintcom in the past, but the recent comments take the biscuit.I am not a traitor, (how dare you call me that) to the case for Socialism. There is nothing contradictory in being a member of The Socialist Party and being involved in what is nothing more or less than a "local action group".If I had, (heaven forfend) joined Labour or SLP, even the Greens, the case would have been defenceless. As it is, I haven't and it is!!!At tomorrows EC meeting, I expect I will be charged with"action detrimental"! if I am, that will smell about as bad as the "revolutionary dog shite" Timothy Kilgallon enthuses over.Show the EC this post! Bring the charge, I will answer it but I have no intention of walking away from something I have given my entire adult life to (many times to the detriment of my own family), quietly.Yours Still Fraternally,Steve Colborn.

So what your saying is Steve, that you didn't consider that the Seaham Community Party (Registered as a Political Party in 2016) was actually a political party,That raises the question as to why they call themselves a "Party" not a group? Perhaps it's because everyone else, with the exception of you, view them as a Political Party?As a group of "ordinary Folk" a "local Action Group", I wonder why they are sending congratulations to other Political Parties, a quote from the SCP facebook site"We would also like to say an enormous “CONGRATULATIONS” to our neighbouring Independent Parties who had magnificent success today by winning majority seats; well done The North East Party, Haswell Community Party, Spennymoor Independent Party and Derwentside Independents. "So supporting the North East party, but I suppose they're another group of "ordinary folk" and the popular conception that they are a nascent North East Regionalist Party is a huge mistake.I think it is absolutely astiounding that you should stand for POLITICAL OFFICE for a registered POLITICAL PARTY and not think that that this may be something which brings you into conflict with the Party. You might find the following an intersting read, it appears you have forgotten them:7. – That as all political parties are but the expression of class interests, and as the interest of the working class is diametrically opposed to the interests of all sections of the master class, the party seeking working class emancipation must be hostile to every other party8. –  The Socialist Party of Great Britain, therefore, enters the field of political action determined to wage war against all other political parties, whether alleged labour or avowedly capitalist.I contacted you by email, as acting branch secretary of the NERB, prior to the recent Local Election, to ask if you were interested in standing iin those local elections as a Party candidate. Odd that you didn't reply to this email, perhaps you could have mentinoed the fact that you were standing for Political Office for another Registered Political Party? Perhaps it was an oversight?Stranger still that you claim that if Seham Community Party had any political leaning you would not have given them any support. I suppose you never got around to reading their manifesto. You might find the following quotes from their very political manifesto:"we will bring in financial control and accountability, to ensure good quality, value for money services""help and support all copmmunity centres in Seaham to provide the right level of investment and efficient management of these facilities and those at the town hall"(sounds like a pay cut for somebody!!!)and what about the following very neat summary of the case for reformism:"It is fine to have a long term goal of changing society, for the betterment of everyone but it was/is (as I considered it) and probably most people do as well, an aim for the future. The ethos of the SCP is something that can be achieved, now!"Hints of the Possibilist agenda there, teh minimalist programme has gone down so far that all we can worry about is dog shite politics

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Quote:

Election is a political form present in the smallest Russian commune and artel. The character of the election does not depend on this name, but on the economic foundation, the economic situation of the voters, and as soon as the functions have ceased to be political ones, there exists 1) no government function, 2) the distribution of the general functions has become a business matter, that gives no one domination, 3) election has nothing of its present political character.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm(my bold)

Yeah, 'no-one' will have domination – the collective, democratic, social producers will 'dominate', through their own authority. That's what democracy is, YMS.And since you are an individualist, you'll fight tooth and nail to refuse democratic authority.You see 'socialism' as a free-for-all for 7 billion 'individuals', and ignore the whole Marxist concept of 'social production'.

L Bird, your mind seems over occupied with the concepts of domination and submission, is there something your not telling us, you kinky little tinker?

[Bijou Drains]

Bob Andrews wrote:

Dear Vincent.There's something I think you should be aware of. It's funny isn't it? Even though these are only lines on a screen I'm actually talking to you. For this moment in time, I have your attention. I have your attention. Did you know that attention is power? Did that ever occur to you before? Probably not, because, let's be honest, you're not too bright. Kind of a dim bulb really. The Lord Mayor of Chumpsville. You know in your heart it's true, painful as it is to admit. No. Just kidding.I hope your feeling aren't hurt. I wouldn't have pulled your leg like that if I didn't think you could take it. I assume that a compagno with your high level of awareness will catch the ironic tone, the sarcastic humour. You're not some average ignoramous.I was lying. Those things I said about you before – all true. You are a supreme A-1 chucklehead. No. Just kidding. You are a warm, intelligent, decent guy. No you're not. You're a f**king imbecile.That's well known. No. Not true, not true. I don't know anything about you. Nothing. How could I? So don't get excited.But see how you let me jack you around emotionally? That's what happens when you give your attention to social media. You give it a lot of power. The power of social media…yep.

You might find the following link interesting, I'm sure a man of your obvious intellect can see the implication. http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/communications_sent_via_social_media/#a05

[Bijou Drains]

moderator1 wrote:

Reminder: 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.

Just for clariification, which post is this referring to?

[Bijou Drains]

moderator1 wrote:

Vin wrote:

Could mods deal with abusive trolls and spammers BEFORE other members are forced to respond??? 

This is part and parcel of good practice which I do has a matter of course.  Perhaps you have failed to notice but several spammers had their posts deleted and their accounts blocked in the last couple of months. Abusive trolls are always issued warnings and when necessary issued with an indefinite suspension.

Hi Brian and VinI think the issue at the heart of this current debate is not the frequency of the abusive post, it's also the nature and the seriousness of the post.I would argue that whilst L Bird is a serial offender and at times his posts are quite abusive, he is at least attempting at times to engage in serious debate. In short he can make a bit of a twat of himself at times but his intentions are not always to make a twat of himself.This is in contrast Bob Andrews who, in my view, has never actually posted a serious post and unlike L Bird who sometimes makes a twat of himself, Bob Andrews  is just a twat.In addition to this there is the seriousness of the trolling, in the case of L Bird, he accuses people of being dim and of being his intellectual inferiors, presumably in an attempt to boost his obviously critically endangered sense of self worth.His insults are not particulalry troubling and if the worst that happens to us is that L Bird calls one of an idiot or an imbercile, well I can cope with that.On the other hand Bob Andrews appears to want to use this forum, not only to disrupt the forum and the SPGB, presumably as a last hurrah for the last remnants of the Ashbourne Court group before the grim reaper subjects them to the "final dialectic", Bob also wants to use this forum to project his pre historic, homophobic, bigotted and at times slanderous views. (is Bob the reincarnated spirit of Terry Lawlor?)I think that, considering the homophobic nature of various comments by our knuckle dragging friend, the "three strikes and your out approach" is not enough. His posts are far more than a breach of the rules, they are homophobic, unpleasant, and appear to be a deliberate attempt to provoke a responce from Vin, which will result in a reaction leading to the suspension of an active party member.My advice, as I have given elsewhere, would be for Vin to ignore these personalised attacks. However I can fully understand that Vin feels that the issue is not being taken seriously enough by the Moderator.

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Perhaps I'm being too generous towards you, Tim, and it's not forgetfulness or conscious political tactic, but that you simply don't understand discussions about epistemology, and are not capable of following a political argument.The surprising thing is that it appears to be widespread within the SPGB, if this site is anything to go by.It's a strange political party that can't discuss issues surrounding social power.

that's right L Bird, I simply do not understand discussions about epistemology, I am not part of your elite group who do understand them (bows down and tugs forelock) , therefore when I vote on the "truth" of epistemological discussions in your proposed Socialist Society, I will probably not understand what I'm voting about and make a complete arse of it, or is epistemology not going to be democratically decided upon?

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

So what you are saying is. is that there is a small group of people (possibly only 1) who understnad Marx, and the rest of the population of the earth do not understand Marx. Sounds like you've identified an elite group with specialist knowledge, there, matey.

I've clearly answered this point many times, and I can't believe that you and the others are so forgetful, so I have to assume that this is a political tactic to discredit those who are critical of the SPGB's elitist support of unelected 'Specialists'.So, to add to robbo's version of 'What LBird says', we now have Tim's version of 'What LBird says'.If anyone is genuinely interested in critically assessing my views, and want to ask further questions about them, I can only ask that they first read what I write, and not what SPGB members and supporters make up, to hide their own inability to understand and debate.As I've said, this is a political tactic to discredit criticism, not simply personal disagreement or dislike.

it's interesting that you criticise me for not reading what you wrtie, but in your reply you left out what you did write, which was:"I've tried to help you make the leap, by providing a shortcut, many times, but you're ideologically unwilling to learn. Doesn't it worry you, that you'll probably die not understanding Marx, his social productionism and his democratic science? So many have already done so, mate"Were you embarrased by your elitist statement?Now I cannot understand how you could possibly claim that you are not claiming that you have knowledge and understanding that others do not, To break it down for you, "You will probably die not understanding Marx" I take from YOUR WORDS that Vin does not understand Marx. You follow that up with "So many have done so already" so there must be many people who have lived who haven't had this knowledge of Marx, So theer is a group of people who are classified by you as not understanding the things that you do. You therefore must by definition consider yourself to be part of the elite group who understand Marx..

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

This is completely untrue – 

How do you 'know' that? Has it been voted on? If you can claim something is 'untrue' then surely you can also claim something is 'true' but as you argue 'truth' must be voted upon. Or are you using 19th century 'religious materialism' to claim you 'know' something not to 'true'?

I'm afraid that you're going to have to read some books on the subject, Vin.About 25 years' worth.I've tried to help you make the leap, by providing a shortcut, many times, but you're ideologically unwilling to learn.Doesn't it worry you, that you'll probably die not understanding Marx, his social productionism and his democratic science? So many have already done so, mate.

So what you are saying is. is that there is a small group of people (possibly only 1) who understnad Marx, and the rest of the population of the earth do not understand Marx. Sounds like you've identified an elite group with specialist knowledge, there, matey.

[Bijou Drains]

Vin wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

 You do always make such a Tw@t of yourself, Sunderland is for the most part South or the River Wear. Geography not your strong point, Bob?

He is not just a twat, he is a  serial rule breaker and hiding like a coward behind a false front. 

A waddn' fesh yerse wi the geet glake, marra. He can gan'n poss his dutt, for aall ah mind, A've hockled better things.

[Bijou Drains]

Bob Andrews wrote:

Look at Vin! The roughest, toughest, Charles Hawtreyest, He-man stuffest hombre north of the River Wear…and he aint no ginger beer.

You do always make such a Tw@t of yourself, Sunderland is for the most part South or the River Wear. Geography not your strong point, Bob?

[Bijou Drains]

Got to say I thought it was god awful. It was like a sketch from a really poorly produced ITV sketch show. I was half expecting Bobby bloody Davro to turn up with the punch line. As to political content , there was none. It appeared to be accusing the Tories and Labour of Yahboo politics and then doing the same themselves, horrible!

[Bijou Drains]

L Birdyou state that in a Socialist Society all members of society would be allowed to control the "social production of truth" but the reality is that you demonstrably do not believe this.

[Author]

Posts