A socialist speaker on question time
- This topic has 87 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
SP,There are two routes. If a branch hears the charge they have to write to the member with the specifics of the accusation, and invite them to respond, and then hold a hearing where a majority votes will decide the outcome. This is ratified by the EC, with the member having the right of appeal to conference or ADM. The other route is deprecated, which is the EC levels the charge directly, with the same right of appeal. It's generally felt the EC should not use this power, if the member is connected to a branch that can action the charge.The reason I'm circumspect and say "may" is because we are talking about many different circumstances, and it would be up to memebrs at the time to decide how to react. For instance, if they were convinced there had been a miscarriage of justice; or, to take another example,a Romeo and Juliet case of an 18 year convicted of sex with a 15 year old, etc; what of an applicant with a twenty year old conviction (or a member whose historic conviction is discovered)? etc. etc. hence why I say "may". No point scoring.
Is peadophilia a 'capitalist' crime? The capitalist courts deal with it but that doesn't make it a crime against capitalism.It has been suggested by many in the media that the 'Upper echelons' are infested with peadophiles. The way women and children are devalued, raped and abused and receive little respect in the courts is because of class rule which today is capitalist. Rape and peadophilia is anti working class, the ruling classes have always advocated such abuse particularily agains the subject class. Forget the courrts and wrongful convictions:What should we do with a member who openly advocates such things without retraction or remorse?
Young Master Smeet wrote:SP,There are two routes. If a branch hears the charge they have to write to the member with the specifics of the accusation, and invite them to respond, and then hold a hearing where a majority votes will decide the outcome. This is ratified by the EC, with the member having the right of appeal to conference or ADM. The other route is deprecated, which is the EC levels the charge directly, with the same right of appeal. It's generally felt the EC should not use this power, if the member is connected to a branch that can action the charge.The reason I'm circumspect and say "may" is because we are talking about many different circumstances, and it would be up to memebrs at the time to decide how to react. For instance, if they were convinced there had been a miscarriage of justice; or, to take another example,a Romeo and Juliet case of an 18 year convicted of sex with a 15 year old, etc; what of an applicant with a twenty year old conviction (or a member whose historic conviction is discovered)? etc. etc. hence why I say "may". No point scoring.YMSI do appologise. for suggesting you were point scoring. A large part of my reason for thinking such, was your (and others) failure to address the relevant points put forward by Vin and Steve. Instead I seemed to be the focus of the attention, hence my thinking my non SPGB member status singled me out, to be put in my place and silenced for exposing Party flaws on such a sensitive issue.I still stick to the need for consistency in accepting the outcome of such convictions in such cases. The SPGB can't investigate suspected miscarriages of justice, or go into the details of who said what and where during such trials. I'm not aware that a prospective member has to 'fess up to any previous convictions to get into the SPGB. All I originally asked was what if the footballer in question had been a Party member, what is the Party policy on allowing such a person to continue their membership. As I stated, things were going ok, with a consensus that such issues needed addressing, until a couple of people started throwing up objections to the heinous concept of capitalist court decisions, and coming out with crap such as not judging fellow workers, unless it was for strike breaking and advocating reforms.So now we have that misunderstanding between us cleared up, I hope you and the others will address Vin and Steve's points.
Vin,in the first instance my answer is the same: there would undoubtedly be a charge, and it would be heard and considered by our members.
SP has shot himself in the foot band and shown why we musn't go down the road he proposes. With his intemperate comments on the footballer whose case was at the start of this thread he has shown how some members would, probably inevitably, allow prejudice to sway their decision.This is not and open and shut case (not many are):http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/18/legal-watchdog-fast-tracks-ched-evans-rape-inquiryhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-30093565
ALB Not sure I understand your last post at all. Musn't go down which road? I think SPs concerns are genuine.What about those who openly admit paedophilia and rape? Or are we to assume all those found guilty in a capitalist court are safe?
ALB wrote:See followingWell done ALB.I see you thought it wise to remove your comment asking YMS why he bothers arguing with a shit stirrer.
ALB wrote:SP has shot himself in the foot band and shown why we musn't go down the road he proposes. With his intemperate comments on the footballer whose case was at the start of this thread he has shown how some members would, probably inevitably, allow prejudice to sway their decision.This is not and open and shut case (not many are):http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/18/legal-watchdog-fast-tracks-ched-evans-rape-inquiryhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-30093565ALBCould you please explain to this forum how I have shot myself in the foot?I never said anything regarding the case first mentioned on this thread, I am well aware that the case was ongoing, pending appeal.Please show me where I discussed the case and used intemperate comments?I have stuck to general "what ifs", as in what if the convicted footballer was an SPGB member, what would the Party reaction be to such a situation. The discussion moved on to how the Party might react to members who are convicted of paedophilia or assault.How ironic it is, that you first questioned the processes of capitalist courts, saying you would refuse jury service because you don't want to judge fellow workers. Now it seems you have a place for capitalist justice when it suits your stance.I am also very much aware of how cases are never that simple. Remember I mentioned I serving on a jury when I was twenty one. It was not simple, but the jury I waspart of managed to unravel the conflicting evidence quite well.A point of interest. If I'm not mistaken an appeal is decided on by judges, there are no members of the public (fellow workers) sitting on a jury, so that process is firmly in the hands of the establishment.Whatever the legal ins and outs of the case it does look as though the female victim was treated like a piece of meat. At least YMS and some others are willing to discuss the general subject and suggest ways the Party could deal with similar situations, even with a shit stirrer like me.
SocialistPunk wrote:Please show me where I discussed the case and used intemperate comments?SocialistPunk wrote:The issue now becomes how does the Party deal with someone like that in its ranks. If the footballer first mentioned on this thread were a Party member, how would the Party deal with the negative publicity such a person would bring? It's important to keep in mind the denial of any wrongdoing. Would members say let bygones be bygones, he's served his time, who cares if he denies the crime? Or seek to distance themselves from such an unsavoury and harmful character?ALB wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:Please show me where I discussed the case and used intemperate comments?SocialistPunk wrote:The issue now becomes how does the Party deal with someone like that in its ranks. If the footballer first mentioned on this thread were a Party member, how would the Party deal with the negative publicity such a person would bring? It's important to keep in mind the denial of any wrongdoing. Would members say let bygones be bygones, he's served his time, who cares if he denies the crime? Or seek to distance themselves from such an unsavoury and harmful character?Ooops, I forgot I said that….[sarcasm].Is that it ALB? Is that the sum total of me discussing the case? I really think you shouldn't have bothered. If you read it properly the only bit about the case I mention is the denial of wrongdoing, that's hardly discussing the case. If I were discussing the case I would also be talking about the girl and how she ended up in the room and how many others were there and what may or may not have gone on in the room. That would be discussing the case.I'm simply asking a hypothetical question about if such a person were a member of the SPGB, what would be the reaction or response to having a convicted rapist in your midst. You should keep in mind that this is about two years since the trial, and such a hypothetical situation may have already been dealt with and membership may have been revoked back then.As for my intemperate or extreme comments about the footballer, the words unsavoury and harmful are hardly over the top.Sorry ALB but you're clutching at straws.Now let's look at what you said.
ALB wrote:…..I don't believe in judging and being responsible for punishing fellow workers. So, if I was called, I'd always vote for acquittal (except in the case of capitalists accused of fraud, in which case I'd always vote for guilty). The only of reason I can think for charging a member (apart from breaking the rules or expressing anti-socialist views) would be alleged strike-breaking or stealing from the party or a trade union, not for breaking some capitalist law.So if you were on a jury of a capitalist fraud case you would vote guilty even if the evidence said otherwise.What constitutes anti socialist views in the world of ALB I wonder. Racism, homophobia, sexism, all unacceptable. Rape, paedophilia, assault…err not sure about those, ALBs seems to have those down as capitalist laws. Breaking Party rules, strike breaking and stealing money from the Party, those are definately unacceptable to ALB.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.