Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Matt wrote:Some more "Food for thought" ?https://theconversation.com/if-meat-could-talk-would-you-still-eat-it-54497
Yes I would still eat it, is the short answer.I hear they do fantastic pork chops at The restaurant at the End of the Universe
jondwhite wrote:CPGB-PCC Notes for Action, March 4 2016Quote:An apocryphal story has it that the Socialist Party of Great Britain, upon discovering that its membership had risen considerably in the last year, decided that there could not possibly be so many true socialists in the country and expelled a bunch of them. ..typical Leninist, can't even manage a very good attempt at humour. Perhaps Jack Conrad should watch this and get an idea of how irony really workshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGh8gsjlAuQ
Vin wrote:Alan,apology accepted, we are still palsI have been informed that the IC doesn't have a problem with branch twitter accounts, so that bit has been cleared up. As for NERB I intend to suggest that at least two other members hold the password. So If I go doolally and tell a conservative party member he is a fuckin prick another member can immediately step in and apologiseLike fuck we will
Young Master Smeet wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:A person may be unsuitable for a particular kind of job, however the management of a twitter account is a fairly straightforward job that, in my opinion, is one that any technically competent member should be able to carry out.There I strongly disagree, the social media orperators should at least have passed the speaker's test. The operation of a social media account has possibilities for imediate and irrepasrable reputational harm.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:Just a very quick and very straight forward yes or no question YMS. Do you think that officers and committees of the party should be accountable for their actions?Yes. And I think they are.
Then taking into account all you have said, why is their no account (hence accountability) from the IC as to why Cde Marratty (who has passed his speaker and candidate test) was turned down from taking over the official twitter account. I'm not saying I agree with or disagree with the decision, just saying I have no information about the reasoning for that decision and as such cannot hold the IC accountable for the correctness or otherwise of that decision. Do you see my point?
alanjjohnstone wrote:Quote:What i find extraordinary is a committee chose to find a member inappropriate for a job, not on technical ability but it seems on "political" grounds of unreliabilty that reflects badly on the member.Who has told you this? This is the first I have heard of it. Am I in a special section of the party without being informed but you have??My apologies. No-one told me. I tried a guess that there had to be a personal reason, one which was better not publicised as DJP post implied. I made an assumption. Perhaps i am totally wrong and my apologies to the IC and yourself for casting aspersions on both. As for not being above reproach, Vin, don't re-write history. I merely refer to repeated occasions over a very long time where you ended up in conflict with others in the party as a non-member, as an applicant to re-join and as a party member and forum contributor….You are not the only sinner by all means but you were hardly a saint in the years i have been aware of you on these web-pages. If some members have concerns about offering you a position of responsibility, it is understandable if mistaken. (as an aside, i recently recall you started a thread and forgot you had, blaming it on prozac and booze, scarcely a recommendation, is it?) What we have to do is go beyond this atmosphere of friction and reach out for a settlement of it. I am sure many, including yourself, is fed up of this acrimony that has been going on for some years. I am simply trying to clear the air and pin-point what the problem is…and since as i said it is not simply the Twitter account but something that goes further back. We need to get it sorted once and for all.
Genuinely wise words re the situaton re Vin and the IC. However it does not address of SPGB committes who appear to think that they are unaccountable ofr their actions. Regardless of the rights and wrongs in this particular case, I find tis extremely worrying for party democracy.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Quote:To me if you are not reliable enough to be trusted with a twitter account, then you are not reliable enough to be trusted with a party membership, and I trust Vin's Socialist credibility.That doesn't follow, a person may well be a member, and a sound socialist, but be unsuitable for a particular kind of job, that's why we have elections, nominations and appointments.
A person may be unsuitable for a particular kind of job, however the management of a twitter account is a fairly straightforward job that, in my opinion, is one that any technically competent member should be able to carry out. As you say we have elections, nominations and appointments of party posts. We also have explanations for the actions of committees and officers of the party, except curiously in this case. If Cde Marratty was deemed unsuitable for this role by the IC, why was he not told of the reasoning and more importantly why is the party as a whole not aware of that reasoning. The lack of this information makes the IC unaccountable to the party for their actions. Just a very quick and very straight forward yes or no question YMS. Do you think that officers and committees of the party should be accountable for their actions?
Apologies if I was a little facetious, I understand that they were trials, etc. However
alanjjohnstone wrote:What i find extraordinary is a committee chose to find a member inappropriate for a job, not on technical ability but it seems on "political" grounds of unreliability that reflects badly on the member. It seems the IC were reluctant to explain why to him and seek out a compromise,This is the bit I am deeply concerned about. If, as seems to be the case, the IC think that Vin is "unreliable", then they have, as part of their role in a democratic Socialist movement to explain why that is. To me if you are not reliable enough to be trusted with a twitter account, then you are not reliable enough to be trusted with a party membership, and I trust Vin's Socialist credibility.The other, and to some extent the more worrying thing about this, is that it appears (and I can only say appears as I am an outsider looking in) that members of the SPGB (i.e.. the IC) think that it is ok that that there are members of the party who are safe to be members but not trusted to put forward the Socialist case in addition to this (the most worrying bit to me) is that they appear to think that as members of a committee of the Party are in a position to make that judgment alone, without recourse to the democratic processes within the party, without providing reasoning to make that decision and without providing records and minutes of that decision being made. Is this some new kind of Democratic Centralism, where the elite decide and the membership toe the line?I have known Vin as a Socialist for something near to 35 years, I have never had any doubt about his understanding of the Party case and of his commitment to the Socialist cause, I find it very concerning that others in the party should question this, or allow personal feelings and prejudices to become part of how we do business. This is the kind of crap you expect from the SWP, the Militant or the ICC
alanjjohnstone wrote:I have to 'fess upI'm warming the seats of two inactive world socialism blogs awaiting the resurgence of the WSM to take them overhttps://worldsocialism.wordpress.com/https://worldsocialists.wordpress.com/They were trials for a new blog that didn't see the light of day but one day may be useful and it stops other rival groups from grabbing the name.and did you have to have permission from the IC to start these blogs?
Surely as a committee of the party the IC needs to be accountable. Can a member of the IC please account for their decision not to allow Comrade Marratty to operate the worldsocialism twitter account? It is a fairly straightforward question and it NEEDS to be answered. I find it worrying that, despite requests, the IC has not circulated any minutes that I am aware of which clarify their decision making process.If the IC cannot (or will not) answer this fairly straightforward question, then it has become unaccountable to the party and therefore is going beyond its remit and terms of reference and as such the members of that committee should either put this right or resign.As to what appears to me to be the bizarre idea that it should be a "person or ideally persons from the companion parties", forgive my ignorance but surely the SPGB is one of the companion parties and as such comrade Marratty as a member of the SPGB is perfectly placed to carry out this role.The inference I am making from this, and taking into account that members of the IC resigned from the AV committee when comrade Marratty was appointed, is that they hold personal opinions of comrade Marratty which are influencing their administration of their party role. Is it a case that the IC is creating a two tier membership, members who meet the IC's approval and members who do not?
DJP wrote:gnome wrote:HO offers some first class accommodation…So long as you bring ear plugs to block out the noise of the disco next door!
To be honest, if I was staying overnight at HO, the people at the disco should probably be more worried about me being next door to them than I would be about them being next door to me!!!
Unfortunately I definitely cannot make Conference. Family commitments mean that if I went to conference my better half would have my nads for castanets
the issue of twitter and other internet based social media is a complex one. The party, rightly in my opinion has special provision for those comrades who take on responsibilities such as acting as a candidate or acting as a party speaker.However one of the difficulties generally with things such as twitter is that they intuitively feel like a general conversation that you would have down the boozer, and god knows I've said enough stupid things when I'm full of ale, however they are not. A party speaker might say something that is questionable in front of a relatively small number of people and it will only be remembered and reported by those present. I can say something down the pub that disappears in the ether, however what goes on the net can be read by millions if not billions. We have all come across reports of "celebrities" of MPs who've made stupid comments they regret on twitter or some other social media, when they were pissed up or not thinking, just ask Adam Johnson (sorry to my Mackem comrades). We do need to be careful that this does not happen to our official postings.Consequently we need to have some degree of democratic party control over these outlets, however we also need to ensure that whatever controls we have over the outlets are also democratically controlled and accountable and do not set themselves up as judge, jury and final arbiters of what goes on line.I also think that the starting point in all of this has to be trust, that we ensure that democratic accountability is in place and that the relevant controls are also in place and then we allow those who wish to do good work for the party to get on with it. With all of these things there will be mistakes and we can learn from them, however we do need to trust our fellow socialists to get on with the propagation of socialist ideas
gnome wrote:Vin wrote:February online meetingVery pleased with turnout 0f 8 members. Thought it was going to be difficult to get qourum to sort Form C out but members ralliedVery encouraging news, Vin. Good to hear too that Stephen has rejoined and that Tim will join you (EC willing) on the A/V Committee…
Yes Gnome, Vin told me as part of the role you get to go to the Oscars, is that right?
I think the problem is that your message stated "posting Labour party press handouts in your Twitter feed, is in breach of our hostility clause and they should be deleted.", which implies that your decision on the matter is final and that you have the authority to decide how the hostility clause should be interpreted. Perhaps if you had written "posting Labour party press handouts in your Twitter feed, may be in breach of our hostility clause and perhaps you should consider deleting them." This might have been more appropriate, as I assume you do not have the exclusive right to decide what constitutes a breach of the hostility clause and what does not.
So what is ok in the real world is not ok in the virtual world (redistributing uncritically the work of non-members and members of other political parties such as Kautsky) and what goes on in the virtual world has to be regulated (by the IC) in ways that we do not in the real world. Funny old world, the virtual world, isn't it. You could be forgiven for thinking that someone somewhere is nit picking because they have a particular axe to grind. Although I'm sure the actions of the IC in pointing out Vin's supposed breach of the hostility clause were motivated by nothing of this kind.
