Free speech and criticism

[lindanesocialist]

There is also an email to the the Internet Committee from NERB  informing them of the twitter account @world_Socialism. So why they should say this to the EC remains a mystery https://www.dropbox.com/s/sz33v8qb8oj8e0k/Emailto%20IC3rdFeb%20Tw.png?dl=0

[SocialistPunk]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

I am aware that you have probably not seen that report, it has taken our branch a while to get hold of it.YFSTim

Tim,You seem to suggest that some kind of delay was taking place, yet when Steve contacted HO a paper copy was sent to him in reasonable time.

[Bijou Drains]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

I am aware that you have probably not seen that report, it has taken our branch a while to get hold of it.YFSTim

Tim,You seem to suggest that some kind of delay was taking place, yet when Steve contacted HO a paper copy was sent to him in reasonable time.

Hi SPSorry that wan't my intention, just making the point that within the party there can be understandable delays in getting all information out. No slur intended on anyone.Tim

[lindanesocialist]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

I am aware that you have probably not seen that report, it has taken our branch a while to get hold of it.YFSTim

Tim,You seem to suggest that some kind of delay was taking place, yet when Steve contacted HO a paper copy was sent to him in reasonable time.

Vin (subject of the report and branch secretary) requested a copy from the IC on 16th April and was refused. A digital copy could easily have been sent vi email.

[SocialistPunk]

Linda,You don't seem capable of grasping that the IC don't do requests. They report to the EC, so I guess once the EC get the report it's open for the public, on request from HO.Like I said Steve contacted HO for the report. I've no doubt if he'd contacted the IC his request would have been turned down also.

[moderator1]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Linda,You don't seem capable of grasping that the IC don't do requests. They report to the EC, so I guess once the EC get the report it's open for the public, on request from HO.Like I said Steve contacted HO for the report. I've no doubt if he'd contacted the IC his request would have been turned down also.

Its been standard procedure and in line with good practice that all requests for information dealing with current EC business and which is not yet in the public domain go through HO.  HO can only divulge this information once its been discussed by the EC.

[Anonymous]

These are very slow moving exchanges between the department and the E.C. and events in between submissions change the course of them. There was no objection to the branch having a designated twitter feed. The objection was to the usurpation ot worldsocialism, which was earmarked for the companion parties (entirely within the internet departments longstanding custom and practice remit) and approved by the E.C.(That is and was the context)Rather, in a forum message dated 2 February at <https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/regional-branches/north-east/agenda-nerb-emeeting-be-held-between-29th-31st-jan-2016?page=5#comment-29102&gt;,Cde Maratty complains that he had not been permitted to operate the Party’s official Twitter account, and so took it upon himself to set up an “alternative account” as a challenge for the Internet Committee.We have always tried to facilitate the companion parties in this way even before the formation of the I.C.. The WSM forum an example as is the worldsocialism.org website and spopen.There was no indication either, at that  time, the branch had approved the setting up of a Twitter feed. Indeed when the description on the feed was changed to read NERB branch some of us, in the majority, were prepared to shrug off the attempted circumvention of the procedures so long as it remained NERB.There was no objection to the branch having a designated twitter feed.However, on 22 February the minutes of the 6 February EC meeting were published. In response toour report, the EC authorised us to contact the owner of @world_socialism and request that theyspecify that the account is not officially endorsed by the Party.Cde Maratty pre-empted our effort to contact him by sending us an apparently friendly e-mail on 4 March, thanking us forthe motion and noting that it had reminded him to have the account state that it is operated by NERB.Exactly one minute later, however, he posted an angry forum message at <http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/world-socialist-movement/twitter-account-worldsocialismcom?page=5#comment-30354&gt; about the same motion, calling it “beyondcomprehension” and accusing us of trying to shut down the Branch’s account:Despite all of this, I personally continued to try to re-assure that we had no objection to a branch Twitter feed. It was in this helpful vein I informed you the branch of retweeting Labour Party press releases.  This was turned into another circus.Again in response ot accusations on spintcom the IC were trying to close down the Branch Twitter feed, I attempted tpo reassure Cde. Marraty that we had no objections to a branch feed. Seeming to have reasured him I then asked why he had used the worldsocialism name.

I was only trying to help and clear up any misapprehension we in the department were opposed to a 'branch' feed. Similarly on the Forum.

It was my follow up question about why he had chosen worldsocialism which rattled him considerably so.
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/spintcom/conversations/messages/16960
He dissembled and gave two different answers, none in my opinion were correct,the real answer it was all set up in a fit of pique at the IC and the EC but I personally was willing to ignore that and let that go rather than dig out the stuff on the Forum where he admits he was annoyed at the department and the EC for refusing him the official feed, and accept his second answer. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/spintcom/conversations/messages/16968

Of course for asking questions and saying of his first answer,
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/spintcom/conversations/messages/16961

'that puts a different complexion on it' I was abused and called a 'little Hitler'.

Any party member, never mind member of a department, is entitled to ask a question without being abused in this way.

[lindanesocialist]

nivver mind

[Bijou Drains]

MattWithout trying to go all Paxman on you, you stated that "My comment stands. There was never any objection to the 'branch' having a designated Twitter feed." Yet the report by the IC to the EC shows that the IC clearly objected to the branch's twitter feed. So your original statement of there never having been an objction cannot be correct, as I have quoted from the report raising the objection.The Cambridge Dictionary definition of never is:"not at any time or not on any occasion" do you still stick to your statement that there was never (i.e. not at any time or on any occasion) any objection to the branch having a twitter feed?YFSTim

[Tristan Miller]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Without trying to go all Paxman on you, you stated that "My comment stands. There was never any objection to the 'branch' having a designated Twitter feed." Yet the report by the IC to the EC shows that the IC clearly objected to the branch's twitter feed. So your original statement of there never having been an objction cannot be correct, as I have quoted from the report raising the objection.

Tim, with respect, I think you are missing the operative word "designated". Where and how is the Twitter account in question designated as that of NERB?  Currently it brands itself as the "World Socialist Movement" and uses the SPGB logo.  Neither the title banner nor description makes any mention of NERB.In light of this, the EC (not the IC) unanimously requested that the account's operator "specify that the account is not officially endorsed by the party".  The account's operator must be aware of this request, because he sent the IC an e-mail confirming this.  I presume the other NERB members must also be aware of this request, because it is in the EC minutes, and all branches are expected to review the EC minutes at their business meetings.  So why does the account continue to present itself as that of the WSM or SPGB as a whole?  If NERB really has authorised this account, then it can very easily resolve the main concern of the EC (and the IC) by simply following the EC's request concerning the branding of the account.

[Bijou Drains]

Tristan, with respect, the report fromt he IC to the EC that I quoted reads as follows:"whether or not that account is being operated with the consent or NERB as a whole we urge the EC to take urgent action to enforce Rule 11"Just to clarify the report doesn't request the EC to reiterate it's decision to ask the operator to "rebrand" does it? It asks the EC to enforce rule 11 or go to Twitter to have the account closed down.However given the information above, would I be correct in saying that if the branch request the operator to "rebrand" the account as the twitter feed of the NERB of The SPGB a companion Party of the World Socialist Movement and the operator complies with this request, the argument over this twitter account is resolved and the IC will be happy to recommend to the EC that any atttempts to close the account should stop?

[lindanesocialist]

Tristan, with respect, why have the Internet committee failed to inform the other twitter accounts – claiming to be  official twitter accounts of the party –  to declare themselves to be unofficial?There is also the question of Facebook accounts that use the Party's logo and appear to be 'official'Would it not be fair to say that the NERB twitter account is actually the only online account with democratic accountability as it is controlled by and has the sanction of NERB?When will the IC inform these accounts that they are unofficial? https://www.facebook.com/groups/worldsocialism/https://twitter.com/OfficialSPGBhttp://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.co.uk/https://www.facebohttps://www.facebook.com/groups/779523775463252/http://www.meetup.com/The-Socialist-Party-of-Great-Britain/In fact what is your objection to NERB running an official party account with the sanction and agreement of the party?

[Tristan Miller]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Tristan, with respect, the report fromt he IC to the EC that I quoted reads as follows:"whether or not that account is being operated with the consent or NERB as a whole we urge the EC to take urgent action to enforce Rule 11"Just to clarify the report doesn't request the EC to reiterate it's decision to ask the operator to "rebrand" does it? It asks the EC to enforce rule 11 or go to Twitter to have the account closed down.

No, the report only asks the EC to enforce Rule 11.  How the EC decides to do this is unspecified.  This could be anything from officially endorsing the account to reiterating the request to rebrand the account to attempting to seize control of it.

Quote:

However given the information above, would I be correct in saying that if the branch request the operator to "rebrand" the account as the twitter feed of the NERB of The SPGB a companion Party of the World Socialist Movement and the operator complies with this request, the argument over this twitter account is resolved and the IC will be happy to recommend to the EC that any atttempts to close the account should stop?

I think it's a mischaracterization to say that there is an argument about the account and that there are ongoing attempts to close it.  The IC was alerted to a Twitter account of unknown provenance and informed the EC about it.  A Party member later informed the IC that he was operating it on behalf of NERB.  We still haven't been able to verify this – as I mentioned before, despite the EC's request, the account itself doesn't claim to be operated by NERB, and we haven't found any indication in the branch minutes that the account was set up at NERB's direction.  (If you can point us to the resolution in question, please do!)I can't speak for the other members of the IC, but if the account can be shown to be operated by or at the direction of NERB, and the account is rebranded to eliminate any possibility of confusion with an official account of the WSM/SPGB as a whole (or it actually gets endorsed by the EC as representing the SPGB as a whole), then for me that would largely resolve the issue.  The only remaining point is the fact that some of the material posted by the account doesn't accurately reflect the Party's politics, or seems offensive or delusional.  I don't think this is necessarily grounds for seeking to have the account shut down, but I do think that the Branch needs to establish some procedure for reviewing concerns raised in good faith by other comrades and members of the public.  Responding to comradely criticism with abusive insults and rules-lawyering is probably not the best course of action.

[Bijou Drains]

Tristan Miller wrote:

[ Responding to comradely criticism with abusive insults and rules-lawyering is probably not the best course of action.

Just to reiterate, Tristan, I have not responded to any criticism with any form of abuse, however I must take up your point of not using "rule lawyerism", if rules are being invoked, for example the IC's referral to rule 11, or if  guidelines are being used to take action against members of the party, for example mods using the guidance on moderation, why would what you describe as "rule lawyerism" be inappropriate? Surely how we use Party rules and the interpretation and implementation of guidelines are crucial to the democratic organisation of the party? if members of the party have actions taken against them using the rules and guidelines, what other course of action do they have but to refer back to the rules and guidance, I've got to say, and I am responding with comradely criticism, that I'm a little puzzled by the use of "rules lawyering"YFSTim

[alanjjohnstone]

Let's drop all this pretence, shall we, comrades. Rule this.. rule that…This has now become something more personal than procedural.  The simple fact is that one comrade does not have the confidence or trust of some other comrades. This is demonstrated by resignations from the AV committee and not just by issues being raised on the Twitter account by the same said members. Would the situation have become such a controversy if it involved another member from a different branch? I think not.I'm not going to apportion blame whether the member rightly deserves such special attention due to past incidents and behaviour on the forum and elsewhere. Nor whether some members of the IC are acting prejudicially against him as they are accused of.  I have argued that we do not possess and should possess some form of a grievance procedure. But we don't. So as we have done in the past albeit in not an identical situation but close enough to serve as a precedent, we convened a special inquiry, formed by a couple of members who's integrity and impartiality were trusted by all. The EC was then seen to have  to have operated without fear or favour. Both sides accepted the conclusions of the mediators. Until we do create a recognised and agreed "complaints committee"  this improvised ad hoc approach is the best we can do and the EC should put it into action. If the EC lays down its "law", i think its findings will leave a bad taste in the mouths of one or other side of this dispute and may have unwelcomed consequences. I am all for openness and transparency but not for airing our dirty laundry in a way that gives visitors and readers of the forum a very false impression of the Party's democracy in action and its members  relationships with one another. The words comrade, comradely and comradeship do actually mean something very definite in my mind.  

[Author]

Posts