Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Apologies for the late arrival of the Feb EC minutes on the forum, this was due to the fact that to support my family I have to sell my labour power and, as part of the exploitation process, I have to travel many miles throughout the UK.
Trying to be as eco conscious as I can be, I mainly use the northern rail network, and as a consequence have spent the last four days being fucked about by said “network”, heartless bastards, the lot of them!
(although I may change my judgement of my fellow workers when I have had time to rest, drink beer and reflect)
It may just be me, and AJ may have more information on this, but is it a requirement of British transport legislation that every British train has a minimum of at least one drunken Scotsman aboard at all times?
no, but we do need to get rid of golf:
There are about 35,000 golf courses in the world (about 50% of which are in the USA).
Each course takes between 60 and 90 hectares depending on location, safety margins, and facilities, an average of roughly 75 hectares.
That’s a total land area of about 2.6 million hectares or just over a million acres. Equivalent to a square whose side is 160km or 100 miles.
About the size of Massachusetts, USA. A little smaller than Belgium but bigger than Wales or Israel!
It’s part of the Sinn Fein claim is to make sure they keep their link to Connolly and the Citizen’s Army’s legacy, using the starry plough as an insignia and all of that. When the Officials and the Provos split, it was the Officials who were more openly left wing, they ended up splitting with some in the Workers Party and some in the INLA political wing the IRSP (sometimes known as the I rob shops and post offices, with the INLA as I never left anything). Sinn Fein still have some leftist leanings, but not as pronounced as the pre 1970 Sinn Fein/IRA
I know the Irish Labour Party is a pretty pathetic organisation but hasn’t it been the junior partner in various coalition governments?
6 times since the war, but always as a very, very junior party, and always with Fine Gael who are possibly the slightly more right wing of two centre right wing main parties, (strange for a “socialist” party to be in coalition with a party that had traditional links with O’Duffy’s Blueshirts.)
Probably the most radical of parties in coalition would have been Sean McBride’s Clann na Poblachta, which was part of the 1948-51 coalition. That coalition was brought down by church over Clann na Poblachta’s health plan for free health care for mothers and babies, because it was “communistic”. You can always rely on the Catholic Church to look after its flock, they were probably worried someone would find out what the nuns were up to in Tuam!
Alan – “Did your proposed voluntary deep-clean project which if I recall was due about this time happen, BD? Or is another call required?”
It didn’t, this time. However I have been talking to Cde McPharter, who has recently retired and he is keen to accompany me to carry out the task. I thought it best to liaise with the new premises committee about a time and date, I thought after conference would be best, delegates can be messy buggers!
It’s interesting that the proposal put forward that we have
“worker co-ops alongside conventional private and state capitalist workplaces.”
is actually quite similar to the economy of the Republic of Ireland.
The farmers’ co-ops have a large presence in rural areas, and retail co-ops are also quite well represented.
See the link to show this:
http://icos.ie/find-your-co-op/
There are state controlled industries (ERB one of the main electricity suppliers is 95% state and 5% worker owned) Bus Éireann, Dublin Bus and Iarnród Éireann/Irish Rail, are all state owned.
On top of this there is a welfare system which is probably more generous than the UK and a health care system, which although not as well developed as the UK, is quite substantial and per capita health spending is not a kick in the pants of the UK spending.
I often use this argument for the reluctant Labourists, who say, well I vote Labour, but only because they gave us the welfare state and the NHS.
If these things were not part of the ordinary development of capitalism and generally in the interests of capitalism, why have they developed in the ROI, which has never had a Labour and arguably which has never had even a left leaning government?
Forgot to add BD that there haven’t been dead flies in head office window for decades. When you saw one it must have been when you were down to see Newcastle last play in the Cup Final.
Last time I was down was Easter about three years ago, idiot that I am I forgot to check that conference was actually on on Easter weekend, which it wasn’t. Had hotel booked for two nights, non refundable, so went to see Kingstonians play at home (AFC Wimbledon play there so at least I got another one off the list of 92) and then got pissed on my jack in a Hotel in Kingston upon Thames!
“But these are only the draft minutes and so only of limited interest now, for academics and others interested in how our decision-making procedures work in practice.
What is relevant are the final minutes as amended and adopted. Only these are the official version of what took place and what was decided. These are the only ones that have any standing in terms of the Rulebook.”
So effectively those of us not in the know, i.e. not EC members or not in the London/SE area, we won’t get to know what was discussed until a month after it’s been discussed?
Surely it’s better to have the draft minutes available than no information at all?
There’s a great video on youtube of Ben Shapiro being interviewed by Andrew Neil. He actually accuses Neil of being a leftist!
To be fair Andrew Neil absolutely hammers him, makes you wonder about his politics, he says he’s a conservative, but on this video he is publicly owned 😀 😀
Regards Cde Maratty, I was one of the moderators on the forum and I assure you he was given plenty of leeway and had several opportunities to mend his ways on the forum. But his on-line behaviour was that of a recidivist.With all due respect, what Vincent did was as you describe, on line. I think there is a big difference to on line responses and direct in your face responses. As you say yourself, Vincent was given opportunities to mend his ways, however to mend your ways you must be made aware of the inappropriateness of that behaviour. The report from the EC makes no comment on the behaviour of Cde CA, if she hasn’t been told the error of her ways, how can she be told to amend them? There were many calls for Vincent to publicly apologise for his behaviour, which appears less noteworthy than the behaviour of Cde CA. One of my questions is why has this member been treated so differently from any other member, why has she not been brought to book for her behaviour?You are reluctant to do anything which might lead to another member leaving the party, why is this member so different of more important than the members who have left the party because of her actions?I also think the use of the term recidivist, is not particularly appropriate for a socialist to use in terms of a fellow socialist (despite your views on Vin’s behaviour I assume you accept his socialist credentials). Recidivism has a long history of use in some areas of psychiatry and criminology that I don’t think many of us would find palatable.A technical definition of recidivism is:RecidivismRecidivism is the act of a person repeating an undesirable behaviour after they have either experienced negative consequences of that behaviour, or have been trained to extinguish that behaviour. It is also used to refer to the percentage of former prisoners who are rearrested for a similar offence. The term is frequently used in conjunction with criminal behaviour and substance abuse.Out of my sense of fairness, the case for the defence.
The implication being that anyone who disagrees is perhaps not fair?
I do not (AFAIK) personally know the comrade, so i have no dog in this fight.
I do not know the comrade, so I also “have no dog in this fight”
“She had had problems with her payments from the state and had asked for an advance of her expenses against future attendance and has been allowed this in July and August until the payments from the state were resumed.”
And this was a fair and appropriate thing to do, however it shows that the comrade in question was aware of and could use the proper channels in a situation such as the one she was in.
I think those members who are not subjected to these benefit problems should be a bit more sympathetic to members who suffer from them. I have been on benefits and fully aware of the stress it places on decisions and judgments.
a huge assumption being made there, Alan. I have spent 35 years on and off working as a Social Worker in some of the most deprived areas of the North East, I have also had first hand experience of the cack handedness of the benefit system as my partner had to be medically retired from work at the age of 41, which put her out of work and our family reliant on benefits as I needed to support her.
“…she recorded this in the petty cash vouchers book at the time…”
There was no attempt at deceit or fraud, it seems.If, and to me it appears it is a big if, from the differing accounts that have been given. In a letter to the EC dated 26th Oct 2019, which again has not been widely mentioned or distributed the Assistant General Secretary states the following
“To date the Auditors still have not agreed on a joint report. At my prodding, one of them has just submitted an individual written report to the November EC, but this is once again completely inadequate, lacking even the most basic explanations and contextual information. The Auditor writes that “I” (not “we”) “have investigated the complaint” (again, which one?) “and find that any monies” (what monies? how
much?) “advanced to the Comrade” (which Comrade? advanced for what purpose?) “have since” (when?) “been repaid”. The who, what, where, when, why, and how of the matter are almost entirely missing. Is the “complaint” being investigated about the misappropriation of Party funds or about the mismanagement of Party funds? That is, was the Auditor looking at the person who disbursed the Party funds
or the person who received them? Why was the money advanced, and was there anything improper about it? If there was something improper about it, was this a simple mistake made in good faith, a serious mistake made in negligence or recklessness, or a deliberate attempt to defraud the Party of funds? Would the money have been repaid if it had not been the subject of an investigation? Does the fact that the money
has been repaid now settle the matter, or is the Party at further financial risk? How was the investigation conducted, and what information did it consider? Which Comrades were invited to supply evidence?”“..despite the fact that the member in question had asked the Treasurer and the General Secretary if a monetary grant could be given and was told that they did not have the authority to grant this money…”
I think there is a slight difference of degree in being refused point-blank and being told they have not got the power to authorise it.
So being told by party officers that they don’t have the authority to hand over monies allows a member to take it anyway? I would have thought this was the clearest indication that this comrade ignored the democratically decided upon processes of the Party and chose to do what she wanted to do regardless. As I said, in essence, what is the difference between this action and the action of the Socialist Studies group, who were expelled en mass for not abiding by democratic party decisions.
“(a bursary attend party general meetings is clearly NOT the same as funding a comrade to attend a Summer School)”
Whether it was to attend general public meeting or the Summer School, I think is splitting hairs. The only subsidy i know for Summer School is a reduced accommodation fee but not travelling expenses, and perhaps that might be looked into at a future date.
So the only subsidy the party has is reduced accommodation but not travelling expenses, from your own words you have explained that this funding was not within the remit of the party. If we don’t have any rules about how monies are spent then it becomes a free for all. Again that it is looked at at a future date is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is that these funds were not used appropriately.
Either carrying out duties or participating in Party activities come at a cost, either in time or money. The Party has always had a generous attitude towards members facing financial restraints to engage in either.
But we are rather cumbersome when it comes to procedures.
procedures are in place to protect the commonly held funds of the party, if these cumbersome procedures can be ignored by those in the know, what is the point of us having them.
“Her application for the funds was made the day before the meeting, to the GS and the T but neither could agree to give permission. She applied after the meeting to the T and to the Campaigns member but neither could authorise it.”
Her actions are in no way compared with “…“borrow” a couple of grand, I’ve got a tip on a horse in the 3.30 at Lingfield on Friday, and I’ll pay the money back out of my winnings…”
As you well know, my remarks about borrowing were flippant, however they illustrate the point, if it is possible for cdes with access to head office to “borrow” substantial amounts of funds, why should cdes in gneral not treat the party as some kind of interest free loan shop?
The situation was investigated by the Party auditors and the comrade although reprimanded for “misapplied powers”, and have fallen upon the sword by resigning her Party positions, the auditors recommendations should be accepted and lets move on before we once more lose another comrade from membership.
As evidenced by the Asst Gen Sec’s letter to the EC, the situation was not investigated by the party auditors, it was examined by one of the auditors, with little or no evidence of a thorough investigation, I won’t repeat the comments of the Asst Gen Sec, they appear to show a scant investigation and an unconvincing report to the EC. This is why I am bring the situation to the forum, so that it can be properly investigated with a credible resolution.
As for the other accusation of Cde CA being “under the influence”, throwing wild accusations against another member, I certainly do not accept that ex-Cde DC was “shit” at his Party duties. On the contrary, he was most proficient, IMHO.
So it is acceptable to make wild accusations against other party members with no action taken? this type of behaviour can be extremely intimidating, where was the call for Cde A to retract these accusations and apologise. I recall that cde Marratty was asked to carryout all kinds of mea culpas to regain admission to the party and that many on this message board were insistent that he should apologise for his actions repeatedly
Despite our occasional differences, I regret his resignation and merely say, the door is always open if he chooses to return.
But in recent times these internecine disputes are growing in frequency and i am left to wonder why this is.
<b>It is a pity the same leniency and regard was not given to Cde Marratty, Vincent’s behaviour with regard to how he addressed some comrades. His behaviour at times was not acceptable, but it seems meek and mild compared to what has been happening recently. I would bring your further attention to the opaque minutes of the Jan EC meeting which allude to further shenanigans, I can’t remember Vincent behaving in this way on Party premises.</b>
Look on the bright side, at least David “National Treasure” Attenborough will be cheered up if half the world’s population die.
He talks about overpopulation, if he was sincere he could at least do the honourable thing and top himself. It might not solve the situation, bit at least it would give me a laugh.
Dave Chesham – ”
“…why they think it is appropriate for an Assistant Treasurer (and current EC member) to “borrow” monies from the party…”
For clarification, BD: The member in question is no longer Assistant Treasurer or EC member.”
Apologies Dave, I had misread the ballot results. However it does not change the fact that a member has decided to act against the democratic processes of the Party and use money that was not allocated for the purpose, against the direct instruction of party officers.
I can see little difference between this member not following the democratic and procedural processes of the party and the Ashborne Court group’s flaunting of democratic processes. If that was action detrimental, surely this is as well.
For one of the two auditors to come up with the lame report that tries very unconvincingly to link this “borrowing” of money to a Conference Resolution, which demonstrably not linked (a bursary attend party general meetings is clearly NOT the same as funding a comrade to attend a Summer School) , is possibly even more concerning.
For the EC to then go on and state that the way forward is to ban alcohol at EC meetings, is the cherry on the cake. As a man who likes the more than occasional snifter, surely it’s not stopping the alcohol it’s stopping the EC member who is influenced by the alcohol.
However if it is the case that I am mistaken in my belief that Party funds should be managed and used as per the democratic decisions of the party in general, and that in fact the case is that party funds can be used in an irregular way, with the EC members making up reasons for it afterwards and stating that this is all ok, can I please “borrow” a couple of grand, I’ve got a tip on a horse in the 3.30 at Lingfield on Friday, and I’ll pay the money back out of my winnings.
