Anarchist Bookfair London Saturday 19th October 2013

[slothjabber]

If you want to say that you were refused stalls in 2008 (or whenever you last asked for one) and then again in 2014, then that would also avoid ambiguity. But I think your problem is not with me, here, but with members of your own party. What much of the first five or so pages of this thread are concerned with is the use of the term 'ban' on several forums by members of the SPGB, and my attempts to demonstrate that if one is 'banned' from something, one must first attempt to do it and be prevented, not just assume on the basis of a previous situation that it would not be allowed.

[steve colborn]

Now I think I've seen a thousand Fairies trying to dance on the head of a pin!!! slothjjabber, if you don't know the meaning of the terms ban and banned, let me try and enlighten you. The Socialist Party have had a ban imposed upon them, which stops them participating in this Bookfair. They have, ergo, been banned, Capiche?Now you can tell the Fairies they can get off the "pin head".

[jondwhite]

slothjabber wrote:

If you want to say that you were refused stalls in 2008 (or whenever you last asked for one) and then again in 2014, then that would also avoid ambiguity. But I think your problem is not with me, here, but with members of your own party. What much of the first five or so pages of this thread are concerned with is the use of the term 'ban' on several forums by members of the SPGB, and my attempts to demonstrate that if one is 'banned' from something, one must first attempt to do it and be prevented, not just assume on the basis of a previous situation that it would not be allowed.

Unless the Anarchist Bookfair organising committee are some permanent House of Lords type body full of life members or the anarchist objection to political parties so important and strictly enforced, then its probably simpler to use the term 'refused' or not to use the term 'ban' at all. Its been suggested the CWO also (mis)use the term 'ban' for one refusal from (even merely attending) multiple meetings, hence why probably not the clearest term to use.

[slothjabber]

steve colborn wrote:

…. The Socialist Party have had a ban imposed upon them, which stops them participating in this Bookfair. They have, ergo, been banned…

 I added the emphasis. And I agree with you – or, rather, you're agreeing with me. The refusal to grant you stall, when you asked for it, can be considered a 'ban'. Unlike the situation last year, where you didn't ask for a stall but whined about not getting one anyway. Though to be fair, the SPGB hasn't been banned from the Bookfair in toto. SPGB members can participate by going to meetings. What has happened is that your application for a stall has been turned down. It's johndwhite that you don't agree with. He thinks the term 'ban' is not appropriate at all in this circumstance, because the 'ban' is only for this year and may (in theory) be changed in future. 

jondwhite wrote:

…Unless the Anarchist Bookfair organising committee are some permanent House of Lords type body full of life members or the anarchist objection to political parties so important and strictly enforced, then its probably simpler to use the term 'refused' or not to use the term 'ban' at all…

 Well, that's a matter for you and the rest of the SPGB to sort out. But if I run into threads on RevLeft (& facebook, etc) claiming you were 'banned' this year (ie, that the organisers refused to allow your request for a stall) I'm not going to complain. I did last year, because they didn't refuse your request, as you didn't make a request. I don't think 'ban' is the wrong term. But I think 'refused a stall' is more accurate. I don't think it's worth arguing over in this case. 

jondwhite wrote:

…Its been suggested the CWO also (mis)use the term 'ban' for one refusal from (even merely attending) multiple meetings, hence why probably not the clearest term to use.

 I still don't understand this point. In my understanding, IP and the ICC each issued statements saying that the other group was not to come to their meetings, and that's what the CWO were referring to. If that isn't a mutual banning, I don't what is.

[Author]

Posts