[Bijou Drains]

At about the time of the Socialist Studies split, there was an acrimonious debate at either Conference or at ADM re homophobia. Terry Lawlor made a contribution which relied on an outdated copy of the DSM to back up his argument the homosexuality was a mental illness! (he was a retired psychiarist). I think it is fair to say that his contribution and point of view were shot down in flames.

[Bijou Drains]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Before others draw your attention to my message #31 message, Tristan, we have had a situation where EH and GW  began and ran a blog  without prior EC approval.And to those who may wish to use it as an example of double-standards i want to point out that the banner description when it began did indeed explain that it was a branch blog but this description was dropped when the blog was later re-designed. Members have had ample opportunity to object to any of its 6,500 posts blogged in the name of the PartyCertainly, as you say, Tristan, we can isolate and separate cases that have been brought before the EC but i simply don't consider that approach to be a permanent solution since the different issues very much over-lap and have a common cause.Like yourself, i hesitate in going any deeper into all the problems being highlighted. It has a very long history, going back years.The only new thing i have brought to the table is the possibility that we can seek neutral mediation as a way to resolve this dispute as amicably as possible. Because if we don't lance this festering sore soon, it is going to burst and the pus will splatter all over the Party. 

Alan I agree with most of what you have said. The present situation is a distraction to the real purpose of the party and should be dealt with as soon as possible. I also agree that if it doesn't get sorted soon it will continue to bubble under and cause more difficulty. I do disagree, however with your idea of neutral mediation, in this case. I think the time involved in setting that up and coming to a conclusion would be likely to lead to further difficulties. I would however suggest the following solutions:1. At our Meeting this weekend the NERB approve a formal motion to put the twitter account forward as the NERB twitter feed. (Cde Miller has already indicated that he would support this and it would seem to comply with the requests of the EC.)2. The Moderators return to Cde Marratty his right to use the electronic systems of the Party on the understanding that he accepts the Mods' role is to moderate the forum and that if he has any disputes with the Mods that he uses the appropriate PM system to discuss these, if they arise, and that Cde Marratty agrees to consider his use of langauge and not to engage in personal attacks on any other forum member.3. That The EC action the nomination of cde Marratty to the AV committee and should the present members of the AV committee feel that they cannot work with Cde Marratty, that they resign from that commitee and allow the EC to appoint members to the committee in line with rule 15.4. That in future all members consider there actions on the forum, bearing in mind that this is a direct access point for non members to access party materials and party activity.5 We ALL (and I include myself)stop acting like a bunch of babies.I have no dopubt that Comrades who are not invloved in this dispute find it excrucating to watchYFSTim

[Bijou Drains]

Tristan Miller wrote:

[ Responding to comradely criticism with abusive insults and rules-lawyering is probably not the best course of action.

Just to reiterate, Tristan, I have not responded to any criticism with any form of abuse, however I must take up your point of not using "rule lawyerism", if rules are being invoked, for example the IC's referral to rule 11, or if  guidelines are being used to take action against members of the party, for example mods using the guidance on moderation, why would what you describe as "rule lawyerism" be inappropriate? Surely how we use Party rules and the interpretation and implementation of guidelines are crucial to the democratic organisation of the party? if members of the party have actions taken against them using the rules and guidelines, what other course of action do they have but to refer back to the rules and guidance, I've got to say, and I am responding with comradely criticism, that I'm a little puzzled by the use of "rules lawyering"YFSTim

[Bijou Drains]

Tristan, with respect, the report fromt he IC to the EC that I quoted reads as follows:"whether or not that account is being operated with the consent or NERB as a whole we urge the EC to take urgent action to enforce Rule 11"Just to clarify the report doesn't request the EC to reiterate it's decision to ask the operator to "rebrand" does it? It asks the EC to enforce rule 11 or go to Twitter to have the account closed down.However given the information above, would I be correct in saying that if the branch request the operator to "rebrand" the account as the twitter feed of the NERB of The SPGB a companion Party of the World Socialist Movement and the operator complies with this request, the argument over this twitter account is resolved and the IC will be happy to recommend to the EC that any atttempts to close the account should stop?

[Bijou Drains]

MattWithout trying to go all Paxman on you, you stated that "My comment stands. There was never any objection to the 'branch' having a designated Twitter feed." Yet the report by the IC to the EC shows that the IC clearly objected to the branch's twitter feed. So your original statement of there never having been an objction cannot be correct, as I have quoted from the report raising the objection.The Cambridge Dictionary definition of never is:"not at any time or not on any occasion" do you still stick to your statement that there was never (i.e. not at any time or on any occasion) any objection to the branch having a twitter feed?YFSTim

[Bijou Drains]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

I am aware that you have probably not seen that report, it has taken our branch a while to get hold of it.YFSTim

Tim,You seem to suggest that some kind of delay was taking place, yet when Steve contacted HO a paper copy was sent to him in reasonable time.

Hi SPSorry that wan't my intention, just making the point that within the party there can be understandable delays in getting all information out. No slur intended on anyone.Tim

[Bijou Drains]

Matt wrote:

My comment stands. There was never any objection to the 'branch' having a designated Twitter feed. 

Hi MattSorry to contradict you but the following is an extract from the report by the Internet Committee, to the EC re the ongoing dispute about Twitter etc. and is dated 26-03-16"whether or not that account is being operated with the consent or NERB as a whole we urge the EC to take urgent action to enforce Rule 11. As a last resort the IC could file another brand impersonation dispute with Twitter"I am aware that you have probably not seen that report, it has taken our branch a while to get hold of it.YFSTim

[Bijou Drains]

jondwhite wrote:

Sky launch 'The Pledge', reported by the Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/apr/06/sky-news-to-launch-question-time-rival-the-pledge) as 'a rival to BBC Question Time'Episode 1 is herehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZOx54cSr34

Quote:

Chosen for their strong views and range of experiences, a pool of nine high-profile panellists – Emma Barnett, James Caan, Michelle Dewberry, Greg Dyke, Nick Ferrari, Rachel Johnson, Graeme Le Saux, Michelle Mone and June Sarpong – have each made a pledge: to talk straight and tell it like it really is. And, in the absence of a presenter or moderator, there will be nothing to hold them back.

https://corporate.sky.com/media-centre/news-page/2016/sky-news-to-launch-new-discussion-show—the-pledge

Sounds twatful

[Bijou Drains]

ALB wrote:

ALB wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Whatever happened to Richard Cummings, BTW? Does anybody know?

He's rumoured to have converted to Anglicanism

Actually, it's worse. He's actually become an Anglican priest, joining two other ex-members, the Rev Toby Crowe and the Rev Andrew Wilkes. If we are to be an Anglican seminary who's next? Mind you, as churches go, that's the best as in it anything goes and you don't even have to believe in god. The Rev Wilkes voted for us in the 2014 European elections and actually applied to rejoin (hope Robbo isn't following this thread).

We did get one back the other way, the Late Comrade Kevin Lennon, used to relate how he left a catholic seminary when he was on the verge of taking holy orders after he had come into contact with the party and joined us soon afterwards,

[Bijou Drains]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

 This may not happen instantly, because we are a small organisation with few volunteers (and comrades should remember this when expectign standards of bureaucracy comparable to a government department).

You obviously have not had much to do with Central or Local Government Bureacracy, we are far more efficent and timely than most Local and central Government Departments that I have had to work with or be part of!

[Bijou Drains]

I remember the debate very well, and some of the silly arguments that were brought up to support the actions of those members who became Socialist Studies. To be honest, as a member of a regional branch, I took the view at the time that the underlying issues were about matters other than the party name and that whilst acknowledging that there were real issues of party democracy at stake, there were also personality clashes and what you might call generational differences, which came into play. As these centred mainly around the London branches and members, it was difficult, being a provincial branch member to fully get a handle on some of the subtleties.

[Bijou Drains]

jondwhite wrote:

Feel free to speak with them, but they I don't believe they are interested in returning.

Not being in London I wasn't sure what their attitude was/is. I did meet some of their number in the 80s and 90s before they left, Obviously Harry Young and Hardy are no longer alive, I would have thought the others I met at around that time must be clocking on a bit. Can't say that they were the most friendly or welcoming bunch and I am aware of the reasons for them going, however……………

[Bijou Drains]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I note the demonstration is claiming over 100,000 took place. But looking at the pictures and at the banners and placards and seeing who the speakers were, it was more a pro-Labour Party protest. Perhaps you saw it from another perspective being there. .I know members are very busy elsewhere with the GLA election campaign and street stalls so I was pleased that they made that extra effort, ALBFor sure, for the moment, the Left shuns our message but does that mean it shouldn’t be delivered? And our task is to find and explore new methods of explaining our case and communicating it – even to a mostly unreceptive audience but one in other ways are in search of answers…and believe they have them in Corbyn (and Sanders).As I have said before, we cannot keep doing the same or calling for more of the same. I have suggested a special conference to review and re-evaluate everything. Socialist Studies call themselves the re-constituted SPGB, I suggest it is time now that we ourselves re-constitute. I’m not saying we should emulate ever fad or fashion in politics but address fully why we have not succeeded in accomplishing our objective or even getting anyway closer towards it. A much needed introspection is fundamental to understanding the failure.As Einstein said “"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

if you look at the history of the party, we have done the same thing with varying results over the years, the party in 1950 was developing substantially. In the 1980s we had some remarkable progress using the same old tried methods of public debate, meetings etc. I am of the view that the public mood has gone back to live events. Public meetings, debates, etc. can capture public interest.these days, because they are differemt However I think it is a mistake to think there is one universal propaganda strategy,different strokes for different folks

[Bijou Drains]

gnome wrote:

Why do some members insist on giving this three men and a dog outfit the oxygen of publicity?The individuals who remain in 'Socialist' Studies were among those expelled from the SPGB in 1991. They ceased to be socialists when they renounced, on several occasions, the democratic will of a majority of party members. Socialism and democracy are inseparable.This thumb-nosing at democracy continued with the formation of 'Socialist' Studies. As one ex-member of 'Socialist' Studies observed:

R.Cumming speaking in 2004 wrote:

We need democratic practice in this Party. The affiliation of the Ukraine group to the Party involved 9 members at a JBM voting in favour. What about the other 20-30 who didn't attend this Branch meeting? You cannot reply that they abstained, for there were only 9 members present, and there have been no voting forms sent out.It is the same with this farce over the post of General Secretary. Cyril May died on the 15th of October 2003. There have been no elections to this post since then. It has been 4 months, and we still have an Acting General Secretary who was either elected undemocratically or was self-appointed.I have not been asked to vote on anything since I joined the Party on 16th June 2002. This is almost two years. The 1905 Rule Book of the Party makes it clear that the post of General Secretary is elected every year. What has happened to this? You have decided we don't need a rulebook!I contend we do need a rulebook, and I would be well within my rights to deny the very existence of this organisation on the basis that it has no rulebook.I suggest, that elections of the various officers of the Party take place as soon as possible. This should be prioritised. Forget printing Socialist Studies. Forget your lecture list. Forget it all until you actually set up some kind of democratic apparatus.For this purpose, it is necessary that a special conference of all members be convened. All members of the Party should be encouraged and even helped (financially) to attend if necessary. At this Conference, those present should decide the organisational form the Party is going to have.So there you go, comrades, you have your requests. Democratic practice is one of the most important aspects of a socialist political organisation. I am trying to give you a chance to get rid of the ANARCHIST nonsense of `we rule by consensus', and to establish a proper socialist party based on democratically agreed principles, policy and rules.

Whilst accepting that previous practice and the undemocratic attitude of some members of Socialist Studies is an issue, and I can remember the way that some associated with that group behaved at conferences and within the party, there are others who before and after have left the party, behaved in an anti-socialist manner and then were welcomed back, those with a long enough vintage will know who I mean. In addition to this we currently have a situation where the Internet Committee of this Party have compiled a report (and the issues contained in the report are irrelevant as far as I am concerned) which they appear to be reluctant to let all party members have access to, who then are we to criticise them for lack of transparency?

[Bijou Drains]

Is it just me, but considering we have postings about various movements and how we should reach out to them, is it not time that two organisations who both hold to the D of P looked for some kind of common ground. It's not like both organisations are bursting at the seams

[Author]

Posts