Party Video 2016
- This topic has 303 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
As in Rule 17 stating 'The Executive Committee shall publish and control the Party literature.' and this statement saying 'any publications … including on public websites such as YouTube'?'
Perhaps we should wait for the minutes to appear before starting any debate, not that i am questioning the integrity of your information, Gnome. Just saying let's take things as they come and when everybody is in possession of the details.
gnome wrote:Although the minutes of the August EC meeting have yet to be published, I'm reliably informed that the following motion was passed with just one dissenter:Quote:That all members be reminded that in accordance with Rule 17, any publications except leaflets and hand bills are to be authorised by the EC prior to publication (including on public websites such as YouTube) and be requested not to publish in advance of such authorisation any items which may be reasonably construed as published by SPGB.Vin wrote:If that is the case then the following outlets contavene rule 17 and I wrote to the EC for clarification but it was not dealt with. Can the EC confirm that the following videos and twitter accounts have been authurised as per rule 17 ? As they "all may be reasonably construed as published by SPGB." https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFZgYrHuoQfjE0JBkd_h57ghttps://twitter.com/officialSPGBhttps://twitter.com/worldsocialismhttps://twitter.com/4SocialismNowhttps://twitter.com/imposs1916https://www.facebook.com/socialistpartyofgreatbritain/?fref=tshttps://www.facebook.com/groups/worldsocialism/ And there are many many more.
That motion could reasonably be construed as covering a great deal of the posts on this site. For exaple, if I publish the minutes of our branch meeting on this site, how could that not be construed as being published by the SPGB. This site is publicly accessible, so according to that interpretation I have breached Rule 17.When Rule 17 was created, those creating it did not have the internet, desk top publishing, websites, blogs, etc. This rule, or the interpretation of it, needs to be changed and changed quickly as such an interpretation would put the kiss of death on about 90% of the current activity taking place in the party.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:That motion could reasonably be construed as covering a great deal of the posts on this site. For exaple, if I publish the minutes of our branch meeting on this site, how could that not be construed as being published by the SPGB. This site is publicly accessible, so according to that interpretation I have breached Rule 17.When Rule 17 was created, those creating it did not have the internet, desk top publishing, websites, blogs, etc. This rule, or the interpretation of it, needs to be changed and changed quickly as such an interpretation would put the kiss of death on about 90% of the current activity taking place in the party.When Rule 17 was created, "handbills" were still a thing people had heard of and distributed.
Vin said:I requested some time ago that this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKdMi39yr8Qbe uploaded to the party's video site. here : https://www.youtube.com/user/TheSPGB1904/videosIs there a problem? or explanation? I have received no reply YFS
lindanesocialist wrote:Vin said:I have received no replyYou're unlikely to receive a reply by posting to this forum. There is ample evidence to suggest that no more than two or three members of the current EC ever visit this place and even they only do so sporadically…
Vin saidWell I asked on our Youtube site here https://www.youtube.com/user/TheSPGB1904/discussion
vin said: Resolution 6. 6th AUGUST 2016. “The EC notes that a number of Committees of the Party already have the authority of the EC to produce and disseminate audio-visual material and maintain websites in accordance with their Terms of Reference.”Carried 4 – 0 with 3 abstentions. Resolution 7 “That the motion deferred from July EC: “That all members be reminded that in accordance with Rule 17 any publications except leaflets and handbills are to be authorized by the EC prior to publication (including on public websites such as YouTube) and be requested not to publish in advance of any such authorization any items which may be reasonably construed as published by SPGB.“ [Cox and Browne] be adopted.”Carried 6 – 0 with 1 abstention.Are these EC resolutions contradictory? Does resolution 6 make a new rule? According to resolution 6 the AV committee has the authority to produce and disseminate audio- visual material…… I will submit the video to the AV committee (cde Tim Killgallon) and request any edits before publication.
August 2016 EC minutes wrote:Item B (7):MOTION 6. (Cox and McLellan): "This EC notes that a number of Committees of the Party already have the authority of the EC to produce and disseminate audio-visual material and maintain websites in accordance with their Terms of Reference."Carried 4-0 with 3 abstentionsMay 2016 EC minutes wrote:Item 2 (j):Reply from cde Maratty (11th April 2016) advising the EC that he will continue what he was doing whether he was on a committee or not. He also provided a number of YouTube links to videos he was in the process of producing.The EC discussed the videos and expressed concern regarding lack of consultation with the EC prior to their being posted on-line (Rule 17). Other concerns were also expressed.MOTION 9. (Scholey and McLellan): “The EC disassociates itself on behalf of the Party from the clips off YouTube and elsewhere produced and published by cde V. Maratty for reasons of lack of prior consultation with the EC and unauthorised use of Party emblems.”Carried 8 – 0MOTION 10. (Scholey and Skelly): “In light of the above motion the EC rescinds the appointment of cde V. Maratty to the Audio-Visual Committee.”Carried 6 – 1 – 1Division called: For: Skelly, Scholey, Craggs, McLellan, Thomas, Browne.Against: CoxAbstain: Foster.One really couldn't make it up. But it's increasingly apparent this present EC doesn't know its arse from its elbow.
Quote:EC doesn't know its arse from its elbow.Having now read the full minutes, nor do i rate it as a qualified body to comment on the artistic or presentaation merits of the video as in their critical review in Resolution 11. If their guideline is followed much of our activities can be deemed cliched, and Peter Rigg's cartoon forbidden. And i would like a further elabortion on the argument that the video emphasied an individual rather than a class approach.Nor do i believe that they are computer literate in that they seem to believe that they require accounts to use a search engine or to view You Tube.I can be corrected but we already have a file sharing function on Spopen and Spintcom. Perhaps they are not sufficiently sophisticated for video format. And i am concerned that the Party's internet connection appears to be so unreliable as to offer a poor performance in viewing a video online.I see no harm in titling as yet unapporoved projects "Draft"…Is Resolution 6 in conflict with Resolution 7? Perhaps the Party's pet barrack-room lawyers can say whether a committee such as the internet or blog committee can ignore seeking EC approval as stated in Resolution 7.
Vin said:Youtube does not have to be publicly accessible. Youtube videos can be set as 'puplic' or 'private'. 'Private' can only be viewed by the people who receive the link from the owner of the account. Which is what I did first time around. Party forums and EC and General Secretary.Unlike the other videos which were and are available to the general public without priot EC consultation. As I have said all along my actions regarding the making of the video have been more democratic than past ventures. In fact based on the methods suggested by cde Shannon sometime ago on one of the party's 'chat rooms'.I was nominated on the AV committee and submitted the link to video to the EC and was rejected from the AV committee for doing so. 'Arse from elbow' comes to mind.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Is Resolution 6 in conflict with Resolution 7? Perhaps the Party's pet barrack-room lawyers can say whether a committee such as the internet or blog committee can ignore seeking EC approval as stated in Resolution 7.No, resloution 6 says that the EC can delegate it's authority to act per resolution 7.Strictly, what should be happening is a treatment for a proposed video should be circulated, followed by a script, followed by a rough cut: the division between content and layout (per the SSPC) should be observed.More generally, repeated conference resolution that we should put the positive case for socialism (so no starving babies pictures of the Shave the Children kind).
alanjjohnstone wrote:And i am concerned that the Party's internet connection appears to be so unreliable as to offer a poor performance in viewing a video online.Normally there is no problem whatever with the party's internet connection but inexplicably on this occasion the connection was very slow. I should have downloaded the video in advance. Mea Culpa.However, every member of the EC was sent a link to the video a week before its August meeting. There is scant evidence that more than two EC members bothered to watch it in advance.
Young Master Smeet wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:Is Resolution 6 in conflict with Resolution 7? Perhaps the Party's pet barrack-room lawyers can say whether a committee such as the internet or blog committee can ignore seeking EC approval as stated in Resolution 7.No, resloution 6 says that the EC can delegate it's authority to act per resolution 7.Strictly, what should be happening is a treatment for a proposed video should be circulated, followed by a script, followed by a rough cut: the division between content and layout (per the SSPC) should be observed.More generally, repeated conference resolution that we should put the positive case for socialism (so no starving babies pictures of the Shave the Children kind).
Surely the positive case for Socialism is that there would be no starving babies! I don't think the conference motions suggested that there should be a complete moratorium on any mention of the negative aspects of capitalism, in any case the dispute about the video then goes down to one about style rather than content. I don't think the purpose of the EC is to act as art critic to the party!Interesting though that the EC should rule that effectively no videos, that could be construed as being from the Party, should be published without EC approval, yet they have never raised the slightest concern that "Capitalism and Other Kids' Stuff" has a direct link form the party's official website, even though it has never been officially approved by the EC. I have no problems with Capitalism and Other Kids Stuff" (despite Paddy's strong regional accent), however it seems to me that the decision made by the EC are inconsistent, ill informed and erratic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.