Cameron's Referendum

527 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ghost Whistler
Offline
Joined: 22-08-15
Apr 22 2016 14:44

In the case of the alleged rape, and still in lieu of anything resembling evidence, what were the SPEW meant to do? Just chuck out someone who, for all we know, could have been a committed member in otherwise good standing?

The victim says that she consented for heaven's sake. So what are investigators to make of that?

She claims she did so under duress. That may be true.

She also says that she chose, as is her right, not to go to the police.

The problem is that this creates a situation that makes pursuing the matter impossible.

So again, ffs, how am i to pursue this? You want me to leave because they don't take rape claims seriously? Then tell me how to pursue!

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Apr 22 2016 15:03
Ghost Whistler wrote:
talk to the admins then. don't whine about it here.

Fuck you asshole. You're the whiner.

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Apr 22 2016 15:08
Quote:
In the case of the alleged rape, and still in lieu of anything resembling evidence, what were the SPEW meant to do? Just chuck out someone who, for all we know, could have been a committed member in otherwise good standing?

The victim says that she consented for heaven's sake. So what are investigators to make of that?

She claims she did so under duress. That may be true.

She also says that she chose, as is her right, not to go to the police.

The problem is that this creates a situation that makes pursuing the matter impossible.

So again, ffs, how am i to pursue this? You want me to leave because they don't take rape claims seriously? Then tell me how to pursue!

Fuck you.

Ghost Whistler
Offline
Joined: 22-08-15
Apr 22 2016 15:10
Fleur wrote:
Quote:
In the case of the alleged rape, and still in lieu of anything resembling evidence, what were the SPEW meant to do? Just chuck out someone who, for all we know, could have been a committed member in otherwise good standing?

The victim says that she consented for heaven's sake. So what are investigators to make of that?

She claims she did so under duress. That may be true.

She also says that she chose, as is her right, not to go to the police.

The problem is that this creates a situation that makes pursuing the matter impossible.

So again, ffs, how am i to pursue this? You want me to leave because they don't take rape claims seriously? Then tell me how to pursue!

Fuck you.

If you genuinely cared about this you'd be willing and able to answer my questions.

What does 'fuck you' even mean here? You don't like the SPEW but don't take the issue seriously enough to try and address it when the chance is given. You claim to be an anarchist but are quite happy to advocate for authoritarian behaviour and have someone thrown out of a party they (presumably) care about because you say so.

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Apr 22 2016 15:12
Quote:
If you genuinely cared about this you'd be willing and able to answer my questions.

You're not worth my time.

Reddebrek's picture
Reddebrek
Offline
Joined: 4-01-12
Apr 22 2016 15:41
Ghost Whistler wrote:
Right, which is what I said. There was a vote, the people that didn't agree lost the vote. Isn't that the kind of democracy anarchists like, or does this meant that, in a post capitalist society, you will piss your pants when you lose a vote. How else will things get done.

Remind me, aren't you the user whose every third post is crying about other people being mean to you?

And no that isn't what you've said, you're being deliberately dishonest. The SP members (who weren't the majority of the NSSN at that point) voted to divert the NSSN into its chosen anti cuts front group. The majority (the non SP members) opposed it and left the group. Furthermore the stated aim of the NSSN was to provide support for shop stewards in industrial disputes, not work for one specific political party. So the SP even if they had a majority in the organisation would be breaking the organisations rules.

Furthermore

Quote:
The NSSN was established to become a strong independent organisation of trades union activists, with trades council and trades union branch affiliates.

Its meetings cannot function as independent voting bodies if all major decisions are to be taken beforehand by the Socialist Party.

The decision to drive the NSSN into the arms of the Socialist Party was taken by the SP, there members turned up to the January meeting and forced through those measures. Meaning that the NSSN had been co-opted by the SP, no amount of numbers would change that even if they had 9:1 advantage.

Quote:
Now if you want to make a case as to why them taking it over is a bad thing, then be my guest and show me the evidence.

How's about you start providing evidence for your claims (any of them) you're not a neutral, on every challenge you take a pro SP side and makeup your own reading of the events and then expect us all to keep up with you.

If you think the SP's version of events (which by the by differ from yours) then provide some evidence.

Quote:
Chosen front group? What on earth? This doesn't even make sense. Why would they have a front group if they aren't obscuring the fact they are taking it over?

????? The SP turned the NSSN into an arms of its anti cuts front group which eventually became TUSC. Are you denying that the SP is part of TUSC, or that its a front group. A front group does not have to be clandestine or secretive, it simply has to be a group subordinated to another.

Quote:
Why did you allow them the option to do so in the first place if this was going to be a problem?

Well from what my friends who were in NSSN have told me, trust. The SP had a reputation for being honest and supportive so to see them stab the rest in the back was a bitter pill. That's why the resignations were unanimous, no one could trust the SP members again.

Quote:
Why would the SP do that given they are anti cuts?

Probably because the NSSN's non SP members gave it links beyond its scope. That and a network of shop floor militants engaged in lengthy and costly strike actions weren't going to help the party achieve its dreams of being the new Labour party. You might as well ask why the SP didn't just join one of the dozens of anti cuts groups that had already been established at this point.

I mean TUSC when it was launched did bill itself as being a Workers alliance between the Socialist Party and Trade Unionists* attaching a group like the NSSN that already had a reputation, some groundwork and the involvement of some "big names" in the British Labour movement would clearly have helped establish them. To bad it didn't work out that way.

But I guess you'll have to ask the SP why they knowingly broke the back of the NSSN.

*Which turned out in most cases to be SP members in Trade Unions

Quote:
Why would it be intolerable? Why coudn't you just continue?

Continue with what? Shilling for a political party that manoeuvred them? If an organisation that was supposed to be providing support from shop floor to shop floor can be diverted to the aims of a political party then the organisation is already dead.

And it is dead since I've not heard a thing from the SP NSSN since.

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Apr 22 2016 15:29

Ghost Whistler clearly have every intention of dismissing every issue with the SPEW and appers to think what could they do is some kind of gotcha

so for other people this is the anarchist federation safer spaces policy - https://afed.org.uk/about/safer-spaces/
it's not perfect but its allot better than claiming there is not enough evidence and then doing nothing

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Apr 22 2016 15:36

I've now realized that GW might just be incredibly naiive.

Ghost Whistler
Offline
Joined: 22-08-15
Apr 22 2016 16:50
Fleur wrote:
Quote:
If you genuinely cared about this you'd be willing and able to answer my questions.

You're not worth my time.

You're a coward

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Apr 22 2016 16:57

Ghost Whistler wrote:

Quote:
You claim to be an anarchist but are quite happy to advocate for authoritarian behaviour and have someone thrown out of a party they (presumably) care about because you say so.

You're chattin' shit too.

Ghost Whistler
Offline
Joined: 22-08-15
Apr 22 2016 17:08
Reddebrek wrote:

And no that isn't what you've said, you're being deliberately dishonest. The SP members (who weren't the majority of the NSSN at that point) voted to divert the NSSN into its chosen anti cuts front group. The majority (the non SP members) opposed it and left the group. Furthermore the stated aim of the NSSN was to provide support for shop stewards in industrial disputes, not work for one specific political party. So the SP even if they had a majority in the organisation would be breaking the organisations rules.

Then why didn't the NSSN vote against this? Obviously there was a vote, you are not saying the SP just physically forced people out and took over. There was a process. If the majority of people involved thought the SP could do a better job then why should they not vote accordingly. If those who disagree didn't vote then what else is supposed to happen? How else are such matters to be resolved?

I sense there is something going on here that you are not telling me. I can only appraise the situation based on what is reported.

Quote:
The NSSN was established to become a strong independent organisation of trades union activists, with trades council and trades union branch affiliates.

Its meetings cannot function as independent voting bodies if all major decisions are to be taken beforehand by the Socialist Party.

Then why on earth did the situation come up in the first place? Again, what are you not telling me?

Quote:
The decision to drive the NSSN into the arms of the Socialist Party was taken by the SP, there members turned up to the January meeting and forced through those measures. Meaning that the NSSN had been co-opted by the SP, no amount of numbers would change that even if they had 9:1 advantage.

If the NSSN had nothing to do with the SP initially how could this have happened? Could anyone have turned up and decided to take control? Could the government? The Labour party? A guild of WoW players?

Quote:
How's about you start providing evidence for your claims (any of them) you're not a neutral, on every challenge you take a pro SP side and makeup your own reading of the events and then expect us all to keep up with you.

I haven't taken any such side, you are just whining because I don't immediately accept what you are telling me as established unquestioned fact. Same with this rape accusation. Yet you don't seem to understand just how serious and how damaging an accusation, if unfounded, can be. I've repeatedly asked for more to go on so i can do precisely what you gutless little cowards want, which is to question the party, and yet you refuse.

Quote:
If you think the SP's version of events (which by the by differ from yours) then provide some evidence.

I have no idea what the SP's version of the events is and I have not provided my own version, I have simply asked questions about the version YOU have presented. You keep acting as if a group from the SP physically took charge of a previously neutral organisation yet there was a vote. So either you haven't told me the whole truth or you are desperately confused.

Quote:
????? The SP turned the NSSN into an arms of its anti cuts front group which eventually became TUSC. Are you denying that the SP is part of TUSC, or that its a front group. A front group does not have to be clandestine or secretive, it simply has to be a group subordinated to another.

I don't know what isn't clear about the words I used,

You are asserting that the SP acted covertly, hence the term 'front group', and yet they seem to have been quite open about the fact it was them.

And yes a front group does imply secrecy. Especially when you don't explain what you mean by that. I'm well aware of TUSC. I don't for one moment think they will win elections, so what?

Quote:
Well from what my friends who were in NSSN have told me, trust. The SP had a reputation for being honest and supportive so to see them stab the rest in the back was a bitter pill. That's why the resignations were unanimous, no one could trust the SP members again.

How did they stab people in the back? There was a vote. Are you now saying the promised to vote X and instead vote Y? If so, why didn't you say so in the first place? Are you deliberately being disingenuous because you want to score points here?

So now it's ok when you criticise my version of events, even though i've presented none, but you are ok with presenting someone else's version. You don't actually have any direct experience of this yourself. But I should unquestioningly accept it nonetheless because otherwise makes me a trot etc.

Do you hear yourself?

Quote:
Probably because the NSSN's non SP members gave it links beyond its scope. That and a network of shop floor militants engaged in lengthy and costly strike actions weren't going to help the party achieve its dreams of being the new Labour party. You might as well ask why the SP didn't just join one of the dozens of anti cuts groups that had already been established at this point.

How do you know they havent?

Quote:
But I guess you'll have to ask the SP why they knowingly broke the back of the NSSN.

Because asking such a loaded question will yield an honest open answer? A bit like asking why they dismiss rape claims? I mean, it's not as if those are loaded questions is it!

/facepalm.

Quote:
Continue with what? Shilling for a political party that manoeuvred them? If an organisation that was supposed to be providing support from shop floor to shop floor can be diverted to the aims of a political party then the organisation is already dead.

Continue being part of the NSSN.

Sounds like these people just threw out the baby with the bathwater.

Quote:
And it is dead since I've not heard a thing from the SP NSSN since.

Not the impression i get from reading their articles. But admittedly I don't know since i'v enever been part of it.

Ghost Whistler
Offline
Joined: 22-08-15
Apr 22 2016 17:09
factvalue wrote:
Ghost Whistler wrote:

Quote:
You claim to be an anarchist but are quite happy to advocate for authoritarian behaviour and have someone thrown out of a party they (presumably) care about because you say so.

You're chattin' shit too.

How so?

Though i doubt you'll answer. Cowards like you never do.

Ghost Whistler
Offline
Joined: 22-08-15
Apr 22 2016 17:10
Khawaga wrote:
I've now realized that GW might just be incredibly naiive.

Youre naive if you think there's any way to investigate a claim based on so subjective an account as the rape claim here.

Don't get me wrong, I feel for the victim. But there's no way I can see to resolve it and since none of you have been willing to give me anything to work with I can't pursue it.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Apr 22 2016 17:38

The naiive comment was in response to the NSSN stuff. And I never told you to investigate the rape accusation, I have said you should raise it with your organization as a start. But yo seem to be a typical yes man, just going along with what the party tells you.

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Apr 22 2016 17:47
Quote:
You're a coward

Again with the fuck you. You think you are owed a debate, you entitled little prick? Nobody owes you jack shit. People have tried to engage with you politely and you've been nothing but rude and dismissive. What is it with people who squat behind their keyboards and think they can demand that people engage with them? Explain! Prove it! Citation please! Sod off. Nobody owes you any of their time and to be quite honest I think people have been way too patient with you and you should probably thank them for donating as much of their time to you as they have. Surely they must have had something more enjoyable to do, like clean out their cat's litter or have their earwax syringed.

I'm not having the conversation with you about rape culture in left politics because I've had that conversation way to many times already with way too many stupid men who think their own ill-informed, ignorant-assed, half-baked opinions are more important that listening to people who actually know a thing or two about this. And I don't give a newt's jizz if you think I'm a coward for not being arsed to rehash all this all over again with you because I've moved on from that place where I can be bothered and opinions of people such as yourself have been tossed onto my ever growing pile of stuff I have no fucks to give over.

libcom's picture
libcom
Offline
Joined: 20-03-05
Apr 22 2016 18:38

Thread locked while we figure out what to do with this mess.

Topic locked