Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
gnome wrote:Brian wrote:gnome wrote:Tends to place the discussion about the present video, which mentions both the party and socialism and was produced by a then member of the Audio Visual Committee, in some sort of perspective…
And what "sort of perspective" would that be, may I ask? Would it be to do with Vin failing to consult with the EC and then using the party logo without their permission. And finally not being bothered to send a recording of his efforts to the EC but deciding to put it out on Youtube to ask for comments?
You're wrong on just about every count, Brian. As a then member of the Audio-Visual Committee and as there is currently no rule requiring it, Vin did not need to consult with the EC and neither was he required to obtain their permission to use the logo of the party of which he has been a member for over 30 years. As a matter of courtesy, however, a link to the video was sent to every single member of the EC but only a couple of them could be arsed to watch it. Finally, I'll remind you of the motion which the EC carried at its August 2016 meeting.
Quote:MOTION 6. (Cox and McLellan) “The EC notes that a number of Committees of the Party already have the authority of the EC to produce and disseminate audio-visual material and maintain websites in accordance with their Terms of Reference.”Carried 4 – 0 with 3 abstentions.(emphasis added)
Perhaps if Brian offered sincere his contrition?Brian – Forgive me comrade for I have sinned it is 15 posts since my last sincere contritionFather Kilgallon – Tell me comrade what mispostings have you made since that time.Brian – Well comrade (Brian holds back a tear) I…… I, I don't know how to say this, but, forgive me I have gone off topic on one occasion and I have questioned a moderator's decision in private message with another comrade, a sin of decent I believe, and lastly…….. (voice becomes low and practically inaudible) I called the almighty infallibility of the EC into question in my private thoughts.Father Kilgallon – Comrade you have committed serious acts of disagreement, however I believe you have made a sincere contition, as a penance go away and read 15 articles by Jim Darcy from 1970s editions of the Standard and when you come out of the coma, whip yourself on the back 30 times with a wet copy of Questions of the Day. Go forth my son and question no more.
And the last line of Rule 31 states:"no parties to the charge or dispute shall be allowed to sit as delegates or chair at conference, ADM or any EC meeting where the case is being reviewed"My point exactly!
SocialistPunk wrote:I presume as a socialist you have followed rules when attending branch meetings? I presume you accept the principle/rule at the core of democracy, that the majority get their way?You make an interesting analogy SP. If a member was disruptive at a meeting, would you expect the chair to rule them out of order, I would guess the answer would be yes. If they continued to be disruptive would you expect the chair to ask them to leave the meeting, I would probably expect the answer, reasonabl would be yes. However if the member was subsequently disruptive at another meeting, would you think it consistent with the Socialist Party's democractic principles, that the chair of that meeting then goes on to ban that member from attending SPGB meetings indefinitely? As a Shop Steward for many years there is no way on earth I would accept a member's appeal against a discilplinary decision to be undertaken by the very manager who made the original decision, any more than it would be acceptable that the decision making discussion and reasons for the dismissing the appeal would be kept completely unknown to the member I was representing. Alan (mod 2 or 3), you have written on several occasions about being an active trades unionist, could you say, hand on heart that you would have allowed a union member you were representing to be treated int h at way?I believe the forum rules and guidance are not fit for purpose, for a Socialist forum. It appears they have been based on the type of rules you find on other message boards, however no consideration for the democratic control of the forum has been included. It is interesting that the EC is putting forward the case for strong control over members "publishing" materials, yet there is no specific mention of any form of oversight of the forum.Specifically13. Moderators may temporarily or permanently suspend posting and private messaging privileges for posters they deem to be in violation of the rules.This rule needs to be altered so that a formal, transparent and fair process of appeal against moderation decisions is included.15. Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message. Do not post such messages to the forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal.Again this rule needs to be altered. Why should this be done through PM, it is, to my mind absolutely necessary that Mods decisions are open to the fullest possible scrutiny, a seperate area for this area of discussion should be created and open to scrutiny by all, in line with the history of the SPGB.This issue is not about Vin's behaviour or the rights and wrongs of his postings, it is about democractic process.
Mod 1Could you please explain two things.1. Is your post #25 intended as a restatement of your personal opinion of the current situation, or a repost of the decision posted on this thread by the Holy Trinity.2. What was the reason for the inclusion in that decision for the recommendation that Vin should show "sincere contrition", surely the clear implication of that statement is that he must accept his "guilt" in order for the appeal to be successful, surely if his appeal is that he was not in the first place guilty of anything, then such a stetement is clearly prejudicial to his appeal. I am not posting this in relation to this particular case, but it is important that things are done fairly, to not do so would create a dangerous precident within the party Furthermore, surely his contrition is of no importance whatsoever, contritiion implies a feeling of remorse, what is the relevence of Vin's feelings one way or the other.As I stated in my post, the principles of natural justice follow the maxin "Nemo iudex in causa sua", no one should be a judge in his own cause, as Vin's main complaint was against the way that you moderated his posts, surely the just thing would be for you to have no involvement in this process, yet by the very fact that you have been part of a team that has come to a "decision" (your words) that Vin's suspension would continue you clearly have not stepped aside
moderator3 wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:This is starting to look a little farcical. The way the "judgment" on Vin has been made has set the three Mods up as a Star Chamber. We have the guilty verdict, but we don't have any reasoning for the verdict, we have the sentence "contrition", what about fair process, has Vin been able to put his side of the story, it appears not, has he the right of appeal against he "sentence" apparently not, he has the bizarre option of being contrite.Moderator2 wrote:We advise he follows the appropriate procedure and makes a formal appeal to the EC for the ban to be rescinded.What we have is a situation whereby a forum member, Vin, was suspended prior to two additional moderators joining the IC. Once Vin found out who they were, he asked our opinion on the matter, presumably with the view to have us overide the previous IC decision.To date, as far as I'm aware Vin has not contacted the EC to put his side of the story forward and request a removal of his suspension.It now appears the focus is being directed towards one word.
Mod 3Vin has stated that (with some dispute about the word very) he accepts the following statement:"On Vin's side, if he could acknowledge that he has stepped out of line at times, has been very offensive, at times and has been provocative at times, I'm sure this would help. If he could also agree that he will try very hard not to be as difficult, accept that the mods have a difficult job to do and agree to try and stop being such a little "worky ticket" for the uninitiated:http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=worky%20ticketWould you accept that he has therefore met the requirements put forward by the three Mods?YFSTim
Young Master Smeet wrote:My preferred Hitchen brother has written a piece about his time as a Trotskyist (Chris never recanted his support for Leon, again, advantage Peter). http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/take-it-from-an-ex-trot-labour-neednt-worry-about-trotskyists/ Quote:They were ‘entryists’, who joined Labour because they hated it and wanted to take it over. As soon as anyone knew this was going on, it was more or less bound to fail. But in any case, Trotskyism was always too narrow and too romantic to succeed. Stalin, the cynical bureaucrat and master of manoeuvre, ended up as the head of a superpower. Trotsky, orator of genius, inspired general, superb journalist and true believer, ended up being murdered by one of Stalin’s agents in a suburb of Mexico City. Both men, I should stress, were merciless killers. But one understood politics and the other didn’t.I always find it really funny that so many Trotskyists are now lauding Cuban "Socialism", heading up "hands off Cuba" campaigns and praising Castro, considering that Ramon Mercador (Trotsky's killer) was welcomed to Havana by Castro with open arms and much celebration, following his release from prison. They clearly don't "do" history.
This is starting to look a little farcical. The way the "judgment" on Vin has been made has set the three Mods up as a Star Chamber. We have the guilty verdict, but we don't have any reasoning for the verdict, we have the sentence "contrition", what about fair process, has Vin been able to put his side of the story, it appears not, has he the right of appeal against he "sentence" apparently not, he has the bizarre option of being contrite.In English law there is the concept of "natural Justice".Natural justice is identified with the two constituents of a fair hearing, which are the rule against bias (nemo iudex in causa sua, or "no man a judge in his own cause"), and the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem, or "hear the other side"). Clearly the question here is as much about the decision to ban Vin as it is about his behaviour on the boards, so quite clearly at least one of the mods has been a judge in his own cause, secondly Vin has not been given the right to any kind of hearing, never mind a fair one.The right to a fair hearing requires that individuals should not be penalised by decisions affecting their rights or legitimate expectations unless they have been given prior notice of the case, a fair opportunity to answer it, and the opportunity to present their own case. Quite plainly the process that has been used here meets none of these criteria. Surely the type of process that Democratic Socialists use as part of their dealings, should be demonstrably fairer, more transparent and more accessible than the "Justice" meted out by Capitalist Law.As a way forward can I suggest Father Ted, Father Jack and Father Dougal (aka as Mods 1, 2 & 3) take a step down from their pearly thrones and have a think about how they have gone about this process and then come up with a just, generally acceptable and efficient way to handle bans and appeals against bans, which meets the rules of natural justice at the very least.On Vin's side, if he could acknowledge that he has stepped out of line at times, has been very offensive, at times and has been provocative at times, I'm sure this would help. If he could also agree that he will try very hard not to be as difficult, accept that the mods have a difficult job to do and agree to try and stop being such a little "worky ticket" (he knows what that means). Perhaps all parties could agree to move forward, with Vin's right to post restored and some form of sanity restored.As I am also a "recovering Catholic" I can see Vin's point about the use of the word contrition, however from my experience of Catholicism, he should just be glad he was only asked to make an act of contrition, One of our priests liked the lady parishioners to show their contrition by having a quick blow on the "pink oboe", p.s. Vin, I miss Kevin a lot as well, but he would be chuffed to know that Socialist activity is restarting in the North East
gnome wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:gnome wrote:The second link shows my very good friend and fellow-member of the Premises Committee at the time, Harry Walters, at Speakers Corner in London.Did Harry have the loudest voice the Party has ever produced?
Harry's voice was quite loud but not exceptionally so if my memory serves – his enunciation and delivery was particularly good so nobody could ever say that they couldn't understand what he was saying. He was a good indoor speaker as well – his specialist subject being Anthropology.
I seem to recall attending HO for ADM in the early 80s as a very callow youth, it was probably the first time I spoke at a party conference/meeting, and Harry very kindly took me to one sde at teh end of the day and explained how to project my voice by directing his to various parts of the room and altering the volume. I think he made the windows shake at one point.
jondwhite wrote:There is also Poles Apart?both are sold on DVD herehttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/catalog?quicktabs_store=2#quicktabs-storeFrom the description on this very website:"Capitalism and Other Kids' Stuff is a DVD from the Socialist Party of Great Britain
A couple of links that the current EC might find useful:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arse_(district)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbow
hallblithe wrote:The shoulder of mutton was attached to a living animal. The technology exists to grow meat, which is preferable in my mind as no suffering is involved. I could not kill an animal in order to eat it and by being Vegan no one does this dirty work for me. I 'police' what I consume and do not expect others to do likewise, i.e., they choose for themselves if they eat fish, insects or any other animals. With regard to honey, I believe the Vegan Society (UK) once considered consumption of this animal product acceptable, but now do not. You can read why most Vegans eschew honey here.Whilst I wouldn't particularly enjoy killing the animal the shoulder of mutton was attached to, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it and if through my actions several others were fed as well, I would consider it a social useful thing to do. As to the shoulder of mutton, cook it long and slow, with a little bit of water in the bottom, covered with foil, on a low heat. Or alternatively mince it up with lots of white and black pepper, a small amount of stock and make scotch mutton pies with it. Bloody lovely.
