Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I've got to say, I think there are two answers to this question, the individual answer and the global. On a global level thugee, if it actually was a religion, was probably responsible for the deaths of 10s of thousands of people. In that sense it probably compares very favourably with the many millions of deaths associated with most of the other major religions. On a personal level, as one brought up as a Catholic. I would much prefer a childhood filled with feelings of guilt, being slapped by nuns and being watched as an altar boy whilst getting changed, by a creepy priest, to being strangled and robbed by the roadside in India.We could turn this into a jolly parlour game. Following "was thugee any worse than other religion",, how about "is syphalis more painful than gonorrhoea", "which limb would you prefer to have amputated' or "Tory or Labour at the next election". No doubt some spotty faced twat at Channel 5, with red specs and a pony tail, is trying to recruit stand up "comedians" to appear on a "hilarious" panel show, based on this idea as we speak.
An in depth discussion based on years of research, according to the "great author" yet in his interview he states:"The high intellectual theorists of Communism/Socialism stated that socialism was only possible in the realm of abundance, and no leftist theorist of any strong Marxian standing that I can think of before the 1950’s advocated a return to medievalism in any form."So years of research never took him as far as William Morris, where was he doing his research, the Public bar of the Crown and Anchor Hotel?
Contrary to your hypothesis, Newcastle United Season tickets actually create horrid stressed environments, believe me I know, I'm just off to measure my sperm
ALB wrote:I don't know whether there's anything in this or not but at least it's a contribution to the debate:http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/poverty-is-genetically-damaging.htmlInteresting how the geneticists are catching up with attachment theorists. However typically they fail to see the social context of the situation, early anxiety is not specifically about poverty but rather a function of the absence of what Ainsworth called the Secure Base. Bowlby's theory was based on how we learn to regulate and manage anxiety, the presence of a predictable and calm care giver is how infants and growing children learn to regulate their anxiety. Quite obviously poverty and social depravation can cause more distraction and unavailability in care givers (usually parents however this is not always the case, writers have recently started describing "boarding school syndrome" amongst those educated from an early age, including those who have had multiple care givers in their early but privileged lives (different au pairs every week, parents too busy to bother etc.).If the secure base is not available then the limbic system is over stimulated. In the case of children who suffer early years abuse, neglect and privation, the impact has been known and understood for decades, hype vigilance, social anxiety and in extreme cases Borderline Personality disorder, Psychopathy, etc. They seem to be mistaking the social effect for the genetic impact!
gnome wrote:lindanesocialist wrote:[he more members are aware the better, don't you think?Well yes, in theory. I realise it's hearsay as I wasn't actually present, but nevertheless I'm reliably informed that, going by the discussion that took place at the May EC meeting, most (all?) EC members had not viewed the videos and were consequently uninformed about their content, especially with regard to the background music used. At least one member knew nothing about YouTube thinking that it was necessary to subscribe in order to watch uploaded material. Another got confused with a video Vin had made two years earlier which had some content which could be deemed to infringe copyright. However, that particular video did not mention the party or refer to it directly in any way. Hardly surprising then that the EC ended up passing the motion that it did. Garbage in; garbage out…
That decision making process reminds me of a day spent in court many years ago as part of my professional training. An applicant had applied for a gaming machine licence for his pub, the local council opposed the application and we observed four hours of heated argument in front of a judge, which concluded with the judge asking "and what exactly is a gaming machine?". So they had to adjourn the hearing whilst the judge was taken off to a local pub to play a one armed bandit!The point is that if EC members are going to make decisions about issues, surely it is part of their brief to have some degree of background knowledge of the issues, or for them to abstain.
Brian wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:Brian wrote:gnome wrote:Quote:Statement from V Maratty re EC Motion 9 2016 May ECIt is vital that this statement finds its way to individual EC members in some way, shape or form, because, without going into any specific detail for much the same reasons the EC minutes were deliberately vague in some respects, it is quite apparent that due to most EC members' reluctance to visit the forum, confirmed by the absence of any contribution from them towards this thread in the eight weeks it had been running prior to the May EC meeting, they are inescapably and understandably labouring under certain misapprehensions. They need bona fide, unbiased information. Fast.
Your call for urgency is unfounded. This statement will go to all EC members throught the usual channels and procedures for discussion at the EC table.
BrianCan I go back to the question i asked yesterday. You state that the statement will go to the EC memebers "through the ususal channels", yet in other parts of this thread I read that the EC did not have knowledge of the develoment of the video by Vin, because Vin did not approach the EC but rather explained his progress through the forum. It seems very odd to me that a statement on the video made on this forum by Vin "will go to all EC members through the ususal channels and procedures for discussion at the EC table" yet information about the development of his video, posted in good faith on this forum, which had responses from members of the IC amongst others did not "go to all EC members through the usual channels and procedures". I would be grateful if you could specify exactly what usual "procedures" there are to ensure that EC members are made aware of statements made on this forum. If there are not any procedures then it would seem that information from this "gossip chat room" is passed on to the EC in an ad hoc and filtered manner.
Good point. By usual channels and procedures is meant communications that end up on the EC table. Just making a posting here is not the usual channel of communications. If on the other hand a posting is made here and then a duplicate sent to HO for the attention of the EC it becomes part and parcel of the usual channel and procedure of communications. Which I hope is what happened with all such 'Statements' posted on this forum.The problem with some of the posters is they presume that by posting a message titled 'A statement to the EC' on this web site it will by some magic wand waving in the ether automatically end up on the EC table. No such thing will happen even if by chance some of the EC members are aware of such 'Statements' or any other information for that matter. Such information cuts no ice with the EC and it will quite rightly be treated as hearsay or second hand information, or ad hoc and filtered.Until the communication is sent to the EC through the usual channels and procedures it wont be dealt with at the EC table. The EC acts as an Information Clearing House/Network and it can only deal with the written information it receives.
Thanks BrianSo effectively what you are saying is that:"Your call for urgency is unfounded. This statement will go to all EC members throught the usual channels and procedures for discussion at the EC table."Is actually not the current state of affairs, and that the statement made by Vin will not (as things stand) be made available to the EC and that Gnome's contribution, stating that the EC should be made aware of this statement as a matter of urgency is actually founded, rather than unfounded and if this statement is to be made available to the EC, it should be sent through the "usual channels and procedures" not the ones it has been sent through to date. Effectively what you are saying is that Vin, or someone acting on his behalf should either email or send a hard copy of the statement to the Acting General Secretary for consideration at the next EC meeting, which I have got to say is not how your original statement "Your call for urgency is unfounded. This statement will go to all EC members throught the usual channels and procedures for discussion at the EC table." reads to the me.YFSTim
Brian wrote:gnome wrote:Quote:Statement from V Maratty re EC Motion 9 2016 May ECIt is vital that this statement finds its way to individual EC members in some way, shape or form, because, without going into any specific detail for much the same reasons the EC minutes were deliberately vague in some respects, it is quite apparent that due to most EC members' reluctance to visit the forum, confirmed by the absence of any contribution from them towards this thread in the eight weeks it had been running prior to the May EC meeting, they are inescapably and understandably labouring under certain misapprehensions. They need bona fide, unbiased information. Fast.
Your call for urgency is unfounded. This statement will go to all EC members throught the usual channels and procedures for discussion at the EC table.
BrianCan I go back to the question i asked yesterday. You state that the statement will go to the EC memebers "through the ususal channels", yet in other parts of this thread I read that the EC did not have knowledge of the develoment of the video by Vin, because Vin did not approach the EC but rather explained his progress through the forum. It seems very odd to me that a statement on the video made on this forum by Vin "will go to all EC members through the ususal channels and procedures for discussion at the EC table" yet information about the development of his video, posted in good faith on this forum, which had responses from members of the IC amongst others did not "go to all EC members through the usual channels and procedures". I would be grateful if you could specify exactly what usual "procedures" there are to ensure that EC members are made aware of statements made on this forum. If there are not any procedures then it would seem that information from this "gossip chat room" is passed on to the EC in an ad hoc and filtered manner.
Brian wrote:gnome wrote:Quote:Statement from V Maratty re EC Motion 9 2016 May ECIt is vital that this statement finds its way to individual EC members in some way, shape or form, because, without going into any specific detail for much the same reasons the EC minutes were deliberately vague in some respects, it is quite apparent that due to most EC members' reluctance to visit the forum, confirmed by the absence of any contribution from them towards this thread in the eight weeks it had been running prior to the May EC meeting, they are inescapably and understandably labouring under certain misapprehensions. They need bona fide, unbiased information. Fast.
Your call for urgency is unfounded. This statement will go to all EC members throught the usual channels and procedures for discussion at the EC table.
Hi Brianif this forum is a "gossip chat room" can you explain EXPLICITLY what the "usual channels" are that this information will travel through to get to the EC. If we have some idea what these "usual channels" are then perhaps we can arrange for some dredgers to clear the channels, as they do not appear to be flowing particularly effectively at the moment. Yours for informed democracyTim
come the revolution comrade, no need for barricades, they can use me (not that there will be barricades anyway)
robbo203 wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:Clearly the second ice cream you eat yields less utility or use value/pleasure than the first and third even less than the second , I would dispute this statement!Why Tim? I don't think its an unreasonable gneralisation. I mean there are exceptions to the law of diminishing marginal returns but by and large it holds true, I think. If you continue to eat ice cream after ice cream I guarantee your desire for ice cream will diminish to zero soon or later. Unless you have an infinite capacity to eat ice cream!
I am a very greedy man, nowadays, I am also a very fat man
Exactly, how could you assess the subjective value of beer. Is it the eighth pint that gets me drunk or the seven I had before the eighth pint. Which has the greater utility.
Clearly the second ice cream you eat yields less utility or use value/pleasure than the first and third even less than the second , I would dispute this statement!
It strikes me that the issue is complex and multi-facetted. We cannot ignore the fact that the internet and its flexibility offer us the chance to speed up and truly democratise the party decision making forum. he rule book, in my opinion, does not currently reflect the world as it is now, but rather a world of twenty years ago. For instance rule 17 which states “The Executive Committee shall publish and control the Party literature. Election Statements and Election Manifestos must be approved by the Executive Committee before printing excepting handbills and leaflets. They shall establish a literature agency, from which all Branches shall be supplied,” is a rule which was fine when the majority of non face to face propaganda was done in print. We now have the situation where it seems some of the EC are suggesting that twitter, which by its very nature is instantaneous, should be administered through rule 17, similarly videos, audio material, etc., etc. The rule actually states literature, which begs the question what is literature. Are my current musings, published on the party forum covered by Rule 17. What now constitutes publishing? Does Facebook, blogging,, etc. constitute publishing, or would it be does it fall into the same category as public speaking, we have tests for party speakers who might reach an audience of 100 (God loves an optimist!) where as electronic communication can reach 1,000s even 1,000,000.Similarly rule 7. “The Branch shall be the unit of organisation.” This rule reflected the only feasible way of organising democratically in 1904; this is no longer the case. We now have options, could it be that the branch is way we group for propaganda and local debate, the way we organise interplay with the democratic organs of the party could very easily be different. The way we organise internal democracy could also be very different. It would be very easy to broadcast EC meetings with members able to observe all decision making processes. These could be recorded and made available an archive. Minutes would probably be needed to provide succinct summary of the decision making processes, however their veracity would be far more testable if this was the case. Similarly conference and or ADM could be available to view as it happens, which might improve the quality of debate, and the party members involved it he decision making could be better informed about the issues at stake. We also have to be aware, however that not all members are computer literate or would choose to participate in this way, we must, in my view, consider their needs and preferences as well.The argument that the EC, those on committees and those geographically/socially close enough to Clapham High Street could be considered an informed decision making elite, whilst other members who do not have this level of access are uninformed and as a result disenfranchised, is a powerful one. The issue of the WSP (I) and other decisions made by the EC recently add to my concerns that this may be the case. There have been several instances in my time in the party where certain issues are known and disclosed to a certain few members of the party, usually for non-malign reasons, however the possibility of this being used in a malign way should never be dismissed and any opportunity for widening member activity and participation should, in my opinion, be embraced, tested out and where feasible be implemented.
