Forum Replies Created
I took some Standards and some pamphlets for Karl's birthday and they were very well received. They had a few recent Standards on display. Is the People's Bookshop on our mailing list ? Just before the speaker stood up, I introduced myself as a member of The Socialist Party of Great Britain and I asked if there were any other members present. There was not. The venue was very atmospheric, with four flights of rickety old stairs to negotiate. The single room was small as libraries go. It seated 20 comfortably, but they managed to squeeze a few extra chairs in and a few stood in the doorway, for a total of 30 people. Most of the questions came from students working on their thesis. I managed to ask a few questions and even challenged the speaker on his insistance on talking about the roll of money in a socialist society. At the end of the meeting, a guy tried to convince me that in a moneyless society, tokens were the answer. Someone did say that 25% of the British public were receptive to Marxism, but where he got that from, I don't know. Never been to the People's Bookshop before, but now that I have found it, I'll be back. It is run by volunteers, good people and just makes enough to pay the rates. Cup of tea and a biscuit when you go in, free.
Major McPharter, just an after thought. We have never met, so I will be the one with the beard
Major McPharter, that will be 2 pkts. of Tudor crisps and 2 pints of Vaux Double Maxim. Me and the wife are going ( crisps for her – beer for me). Have you heard the good news, Major? Heather Mills is reopening the crisp factory at Peterlee.
Hi Vin, yes, you were right to move this topic to the N.E. branch site. I have followed this saga from the begining, but as you know, life got in the way and I have missed the plot somewhere down the line. But I always thought there was something not being told, something being held back. Yes, you can be awkward, stubborn and downright cantankerous at times, but that can be a sign of genious (ahem!!) You were'nt "kicked off the project," as you said. You walked, and I probiblt would too, if I were in your shoes. I have seen all of your videos and there is good work in them, but I am not sure why, "INTRODUCTION TO WORLD SOCIALISM SPGB," has been banned. Hopefully, sometime in the not too distant future, you will apply to rejoin (but don't wait too long, as some of us have not got too much time left) and in the meanwhile, keep honing your producer/director/ designer, one man band, video skills, we sure need them.
Things might be progressing nicely, but I think a call should be going out to the membership, to see just who might be interested. Could be a tad embarrassing if the three speakers turned up and only two N.E. branch members.
Vin, please forgive me for being a little vague on the subject, but I thought you resigned from the Party because moneys allocated to the .A.V. Committee was handed to a third party. i did not know you had been, "kicked off the project." Can you explain? I, for one, would have prefered that you stayed in the Party and that one day in the not too distant future, you would have come back to the N.E. branch (cap in hand).
I wholeheartedly agree with Marcos. While there must be discourse at all levels, let us not scare off curious, or even doubtful members of the working class, who take the trouble to find us.
Hi Gnome, I have spoken to my ISP about getting a new router, before last december and it is overdue. I should call again. My provider is Talktalk.
Thanks for the reply, Gnome. You are a regular contributor and you have no bother. It would seem that I can get away with short posts, but not long-winded posts. My router is temperamental, perhaps that might be the cause?
Hi Vin, Thanks for the advise. The browser I am using is Mozilla Firefox and I am lothe to change it, but I suppose if I have to, I will. Does anyone else use Mozilla Firefox ?
Moderator, I know I should be communicating privately, but I need this to be publicly known. This is the second time I have attempted to post on this subject and both times the bulk of my message has not appeared. I am pretty well pissed off.
While replying to Gnome's post #6, a large chunk of my post (#6) failed to appear. I do not seem to have much luck posting on this Forum. I am unable to paste & copy, I can't preview my posts and sometimes the layout is disrupted. It has been suggested that it might have something to do with my internet security, but whatever the case, I hope to have more success with the new updated Forum due out, next month. Gnome raised 3 observations and I have replied to Observation No. 1 in my post (#6 ). Observation No. 2Quote:"As the N.E. branch was not a functioning unit of the Party, the E.C. .accepted the recommendation of it's Branch Secretary, concerning ex cde Colborn [unquote] I have already shown that the North East branch IS a functioning unit of the Party. Has the acting branch secretary got any special powers that I do not know of, that the E.C. act on his recommendation without referal to the branch ? The correct procedure as per. Rule 29 is;Quote:" Charges against a member shall be submitted in writing to the branch and a copy supplied to the member accused, who shall be allowed 14 days to enter the defence. The branch shall consider the matter at a specially summoned meeting and a majority of those voting shall have the power to expel any member, subject to ratification by the Executive Committee. An expelled member shall have the right of appeal to Deligate Meeting, or the Annual Conference."[unquote] In his correspondence to the E.C. the N.E. branch acting secretary said,Quote:" It would seem there is little option but to ask him to resign, or expel him." [unquote] The N.E.branch acting secretary may well thought that this was the only action left open to the Party, but I may be excused for thinking that, when dealing with someone who has committed his whole adult life to the socialist cause, who has had over 1,000 published letters, who appeared on radio talk shows and in elections counted his votes for Socialism in the hundreds, that we might be interested in what he has to say on this matter Observation No. 3Quote:Had the N.E.branch been a functioning unit of the Party, it would have by now and in accordance with Rule 2, take steps to lapse those members with whom contact had been lost. [ unquote] Unless my Rule book is out of date ( and if it iis, why have I not been furbished with a new one), Rule No. 2 statesQuote:Each member shall pay a voluntary amount annually to the Party funds. A member MAY be lapsed by a branch following loss of contact, subject to E.C. ratification [unquote] I say that lapsing a comrade through loss of contact should be an absolute last course of agtion. yours sincerely, joe davison
Part of my #6 has not posted. It has vanished into the either. Might come back later and rewrite it.
Hello Dave,welcome to the North East branch site. Let me answer your observations. Observation No. 1 Rule 29 can only be implemented by a functioning branch. From Jan. 2015 to August 2016 the N.E. branch held 8 meetings. On the 13th. of August 2016 our acting secretary posted proposed dates for forthcoming branch meetings. Unfortunatelly, in December 2016, cde. Stephen Davison died and I went into mourning, but at that time, there were still 4 active N.E.branch members who could have attended meetings, possibly 5 if another busy member (G.W.) could find time to attend. The four most likely to attend were, our acting branch secretary, Major Mcfarter (forum name), Colborn(E.), Colborn(S). By not following correct procedure in Rule 29, the E.C. made the branch inquorate. Observation No. 2 As the N.E. branch was not a functioning unit of the party, the E.C. accepted the recommendation of it's branch Secretary concerning ex cde. Colborn I have already shown that the N.E. branch is a functioning unit of the partymeeting andHas the acting branch secretary got any special powers that I don't know of, that the E.C. act on his recommendations without referal to the branch? The correct procedure as ppper. rule 29 would be;Quote:charges against any member shall be submitted in writing to the branch and a copy supplied to the member accused, who shall be allowed 14 days to enter the defence. The branch shall consider the matter at a specially summoned meeting and the majority of those voting shall have the power to expel any member, subject to ratification by the E.C. …..[unquote] In his e-mail to the E.C. the N. E. acting secretary said,Quote:It would seem there is little option but to ask him to resign, or expel him [unquote] I have no doubt that the acting branch secretary was acting in good faith when presenting this e-mail to the E.C. but I may be excused for thinking that when dealing with a committed socialist, who has dedicated his whole adult life to the cause, who has had over 1,000 published letters, appeared on radio talk shows, is a speaker at public debates, and in elections, counted his votes by the hundreds, that we might be interested in what he might have to say on the matter. Observation No. 3 Had the N.E. branch been a functioning unit of the party, it would have by now and in accordance with Rule 2, taken steps to lapse those members with whom contact had been lost. Unless my Rule book is out of date, Rule 2 states thatQuote:Each member shall pay a voluntary amount annually to party funds. Amember MAY be lapsed BY A BRANCH following loss of contact, subject to E.C. ratification. I say that lapsing a comrade through loss of contact should be an absolute last course of action. Once a socialist, always a socialist. We fight hard for members, we should not let them go idly. with good will, joe davison
Vin, You're not sure what can be achieved by such a meeting? Yet, at the last North East on-line meeting that you attended, you were all for correct procedure. Comrade Steve Colborn deserves to be heard by his own branch. He has been lapsed through loss of contact, by the E.C. and not by his branch as per. the rules, yet, apart from a few enforced months, I have been in contact with him. In fact there are about eight N.E. branch members who, (as far as I know) have not been in contact for five years. Now that's what I call loss of contact!! if we are to follow rules, then follow them. Rule 29 applies in this case. If not, then we might as well tear up the rule book and shut up shop. joe davison