lindanesocialist
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Young Master Smeet wrote:Members are free to produce poor quality videos in their bedrooms if they like, but the only consideration being asked is that they do not pass them off as party products.
I am reliably informed by someone sitting next to me that Vin NEVER attempted to pass off his video as a party product. However, the party blog, twitter account, websites and many other members did. I guess they didn't consider Vin's attempt that bad after all.And Vin submitted it to the EC unlike all the other poor quality videos that are now being passed off a party products.
So I have to stop posting messages for Vin?He does not have my password.But if he wishes me to express his opinions that do not breach forum rules then I will. It is up to you to suspend my account for that reason
I have perused the existing party videos and find them all poor quality. At least he is trying.If the party is capable of having a committee to produce the SS then I don't see any reason why we can't have a committee to produce regular videos.It is not hel[ful to our movement to put down and ridicule genuine attempts of members. Why would you do that?
Bill, workers are living on the streets, starving, cold and if lucky if they are sleeping on a friend;s settee. I couldnt give a fuck about the clubs of big business. The party needs to prioritise and the EU is of no relevance to us' How about a special meeting on HUNGER and HOMELESSNESS and Personally I dont give a fuck about brexit
vin said Just out of interest, do all new members of the IC receive a copy of Catcher in the rye? ( Joke, humour )
Vin saidWhere is the party while workers around the world are starving and homeless? Talking about fuckin Brexit and telling members to avoid displaying the horrors of capitalism on their videos. And wasting party time on banning members from actingIt is not the labour party members that need t wake up!
There is a real and obvious problem within our movement when a video produced by a member is condemned and ridiculed by a central committee. The same central committeee that has imposed a lifelong ban on the said member without mandate. LindaSleep….cdes… sleeep
gnome wrote:Executive Committee has acted recklessly and undemocratically. If the membership had any gumption it would demand the instant dismissal of those EC members who voted for this motion.Not for the first time.The EC is making rules and members are applying them Linda
Vin saidI am sure Youtube is also 'private' as well as public. Videos can be set to 'private' which means only people who receive the link can view it and cannot share it. What of all the blogs, facebooks, twitter accounts etc that are in breach of rule 17 according to the present EC?Not to mention the Socialist Standard which should be submitted to the EC before publication.If the the EC can appoint a sub committee to produce the SS without breaching rule 17, then why can't it appoint an AV committee to produce videos? I thinke we have to recognise that Rule 17 needs a serious 'look at',
moderator1 wrote:Mon, 22/08/2016 – 2:33am#1moderator1OnlineJoined:03/11/2013Send PM The post was seen as a satirical and humourous contribution and was placed where all jokes go. Vin Vin said Odd, because the appeal is essentially a cut and paste from comrades that have spoken in my favour I was not trying to be 'funny' I just valued their contribution and wished to use the supportive comments in my appeal. But thanks for reposting -AppreciatedVin said:Love the cover. It invites Corbyn supporters to read inside. Well done to the production team.In fact I would go further, it is excellent
Vin said: Just to remove any confusion this is an appeal against the moderator's decision in the OP. Will my appeal be considered? For reasons outlined?
It seems my post which simply contains Vin's appeal against the decision given in the OP has been removed, without expanation of how or why it was off topic.I premoderate Vin's posts, I can assure you that it broke no rules. His appeal and my post is in the 'offtopic' section Linda
Vin said: Ok, let’s bring this to an end. I do believe in capitalist courts the defence sums up without retort before the jury retires. Please allow me to close for the defence and for posterity so future generations of members don’t have to make the same mistakes. I thank the new mod team for posting their decision on the forum and allowing free and open discussion on the subject. This is a vast improvement. When I requested information on how they came to their decision, the moderators informed me their discussion and how they came to their decision is private. This is practice should be ended. I will therefore need to use evidence available and comments made to me by others. I cannot be banned for going of topic and making offensive remarks: there are members a lot more proficient at that than I, (see off topic and un-moderated post number 5) Logically there can only be one reason: The fact that I have challenged the democratic actions of the Internet Committee. LBird and other rule breakers have never done that. If I am incorrect, then I would have been treated as other rule breakers were treated. My gripe with the IC is in the past. It would not have been an issue anyway had I raised the matter at a face to face meeting . My cdes in the branch made it clear I had no support on the subject : unfortunately it was online. Something the party may have to get used to. The consequence of a permanent ban is complete isolation without access to party documentation.This is another practice that should be ended. If that is that I will leave this account alone and wish you all the best Comradely
