Why would membership of the SPGB be refused
- This topic has 259 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
MODERATION NOTICE. Post removed.Rule 14. Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message. Do not post such messages to the forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal.
I agree that people banging on about how hard done they are is outrageous. The various suffrage movements, trade unions, everyone wanting improvements. Why can't people be satisfied with what they have. I blame human nature, I do, some people are just plain greedy. Outrageous!
If the EC is intending to discuss, "the question of whether or not the EC can reject an applicant, whoaccepts the Object and Declaration of Principles, on other grounds", then a whole big can of worms is about to be opened!What criteria are to be used? Are subjective and or personal opinions to be included in any decision? As the title of this thread is, "Why would membership of the SPGB be refused", what do members of this site think.Is an applicants "previous" to be taken into consideration? If so, what categories of "previous", are to be considered fair, to be considered? Is it to be considered, that not even Capitalist jurisprudence allows "previous" to be taken into account.Is that the end? What if it is discovered that someone, inside the Party has "previous" and that that, "previous", is considered heinous enough, by enough people, to warrant retrospective action! Can action be taken, "after the fact"?Ramification comrades! I have been intimately involved in the events leading up to this decision. Nothing happened to warrant an event of this magnitude. Hopefully, common sense will prevail and if all the "facts" are taken into account, then I am confident this will be the case. Steve Colborn.
I think party policy and the rule book can only be changed via Conference decisions and party poll.
It has come to my attention, that at the recent ADM, the idea was expressed that myself and Vin Maratty had caused "pain and anguish" in the Party. After I had stopped laughing at the utter absurdity of this idea, that a nothing incident could be blown up to such a ludicrous extent and that revolutionary socialists could be so petty and thin skinned, my emotion has turned to anger that this preposterous idea could even be stated.I think comrades in the party should give their heads a good shake and realise how pathetic this really, really is. Stevie C.
So add causing "pain and anguish" to the list of reasons to deny membership. Who are these individuals who were caused "pain and anguish"? I bet no one has the gumption to admit to being such a softy as to admit their "pain and anguish" and why it was felt! Stevie C.
If I have caused pain and anguish then I cannot apologise enough.
…. but I would like to think that the party is above a witch hunt……..
OK, so this post has been flagged, why? How proposterous! What is it in this post that can cause the least offence? Was it because I said my emotion had turned to anger? Really comrades, this is the pits. Whomsoever flagged this post must have no emotions whatsoever.I realise that the knives are out for myself, however, I have all the posts from the forum and spintcom. I'm not bothered one iota. If I am to continually to be denied a fair hearing, so be it but the "evidence" does not support this witch hunt and hunt it is.The infamous Colborn.
Are you not confusing 'infamous' with 'notorious'? ;)In any event, I think there needs to be a party poll on re-admitting members who've resigned under the cloud of suggestions that they might be open to a charge of action detrimental. I think that the EC should have the power to reject applications on grounds other than just an understanding and acceptance of our Object and DofPs, but it should be a tentative rejection pending the outcome of a party poll.This'll require an amendment to the rules, and I'm going to be arguing fiercely for that in the months before the 2014 Conference.
Could I suggest that you avail yourself of the facts? Rather than make general accusations? If Steve Colborne was open to charges then why did the EC repeatedly ask him to rethink his resignation?
If anyone would like to peruse the Feb EC minutes, they will find that I was asked to reconsider my Form F and an EC resolution was moved, seconded and passed to this end. The Form F being defered until the March EC meeting. No mention, or even allusion regarding "action detrimental" was even floated. So what cloud was it that I was supposed to have left under? Who suggested that there was any "cloud of suggestion that I may have been open to a charge of action detrimental"? and therefore this was my reason for resignation!Nothing could be farther from the truth, which is bourne out by the facts. And no, I am not confusing "infamous" with "notorious", although some may be.So unsubstantiated assertions are now "facts"! Myth and fable, are now reality! Stevie c.
As a statement of fact. Feb EC minutes; (b) Form F for Steve Colborn (Central Branch, resigned, personal reasons)Motion 7– Shannon and Field moved the EC defer the Form F for one monthto give Cde Steve Colborn an opportunity to reconsider. Carried: 6-2-1. March EC minutes; iii. Re x3b (Form F for Cde S Colborn), including Motion 7 ("That the EC defer the Form F for one month to give Cde Steve Colborn an opportunity to reconsider.") It was agreed to deal with this item in section 3. Forms A and F (b) Form F for Cde S Colborn (Central, resigned) A. E-mail from Cde Colborn (16 February): I am sending this e.mail as clarification that I still wish to resign from the Party. Moreover, I feel that the decision to defer my Form F was done without my permission, or prior discussion with myself. I feel that on this issue, I made my feelings abundantly clear. Therefore, please present my Form F before the March E.C. with a stress on the fact that I certainly do, wish to resign. B. E-mail from Cde Colborn (18 February): I feel I must point out that I did not in fact resign for personal reasons. I resigned because of fundamental disagreements with the moderation of the SPGB forum and moreover, that I could no longer countenance the unjust and unfair moderation of certain comrades, whilst, at the same time, other members seemed to be impervious to moderation no matter what their actions. I take this decision with regret but nonetheless I take it. Keep spreading the message Comrades. Motion 9– Browne and Craggs moved that at his repeated insistence, the postponed resignation of Cde Steve Colborn be accepted. Carried: 9-0-0. Nowhere, in the Minutes, was any referenced intention to charge myself, or suggestions of the same, or the possibilty of the act, to charge me with action detrimental! My disagreement was with "forum moderation, as can be clearly seen with the above, " I resigned because of fundamental disagreements with the moderation of the SPGB forum" etc etc. That I have re-submitted my Form A, is down to one reason and one alone, that the Forum is being moderated in a more egalitarian way and that the issues I took issue with, appear to have been resolved. As this thread states, "Why would membership of the SPGB be refused"? There is no reason whatsoever, for my Form A to have been refused. Unless, other criteria were being applied and that can only be 1/ personal animosity, 2/previous, neither of which hold water. As the facts above prove.I would expect, as the title of this thread is quite specific and my post holds to it, that this post is not, nor will be, "proscribed". Stevie C.
Vin Maratty wrote:Could I suggest that you avail yourself of the facts? Rather than make general accusations? If Steve Colborne was open to charges then why did the EC repeatedly ask him to rethink his resignation?I'm very well aware of the facts. I have made no accusations. Can I suggest that you re-read my post?
Jonathan Chambers wrote:Vin Maratty wrote:Could I suggest that you avail yourself of the facts? Rather than make general accusations? If Steve Colborne was open to charges then why did the EC repeatedly ask him to rethink his resignation?I'm very well aware of the facts. I have made no accusations. Can I suggest that you re-read my post?
My apologies, Jonathan, I assumed you were referring to recent Form As. I hope you agree that It is easy to misunderstand and misinterpret intentions etc on a forum.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.