A Halloween Interlude with.......Rob Zombie

When I was a kid it was all "penny for the guy", you don't see that anymore though fireworks still get purchased to celebrate an act of treason by Guy Fawkes. These days Halloween seems to be the main celebration at this time of year.

Oh well lets enter the spirit with this number from Rob Zombie...... trick & treat safely guys & ghouls!

Joint Community Statement on attacks on Jewish Students

The following statement has been issued by the main organisations representing the Jewish Community in the Uk following yet another attack on the rights of Jewish, pro-Israel and Israeli students to freely debate in our universities.

The attacks by the so-called "Palestinian Solidarity" activists and Islamist students supported by the new black-shirt far-left comes at a time when anti-Semitism is rearing it's ugly head in our society again. the fact that a British Peer, Jenny Tongue can hold a meeting in the House of Lords where speakers are applauded for saying that Jews themselves caused the Holocaust shows how deep the rot has become.

There should be no "safe space" for the purveyors of hate that these activists represent. We can all start fighting back now. Never Again!

A split in Socialist Unity

SOCIALIST UNITY

Politics. Culture. Debate.

With everything that's going on inside the Labour Party with the rise of the "Corbynistas", Momentum and the rising tide of controversy over anti-Semitism around the likes of Jackie Walker, Ken Livingstone and others, I'd almost forgotten about the Socialist Unity website.

A joint effort by Andy Newman and John Wight, they appear to have had "creative differences" or in plain English a falling out of some sort.

Andy Newman writes:

For those of you who haven’t followed developments in the comments, there is a significant change here at SU. John Wight will be publishing his writings elsewhere, and we wish him luck, and every success for the future.

John has relinquished his editing and admin rights at SU, and if you were banned by John, then welcome back. I have asked Tony, who brilliantly assists with technical support behind the scenes, to “unban” people (it is quite beyond me). This may take a while to percolate through, so please be patient.That's me still banned then!

However the actual argument that led to their falling out is still on-line under one of their earlier posts on Scottish Indendence.

Start on or about comment #56.

By comment #77 Newman writes:

This has gone on long enough. I have given John a great deal of slack due to past friendship, but given that he has now reduced to personal abuse against me, and deleting anyone who disagrees with him. I have removed him from the Su editorial team.

Socialist Unity can now once again disappear into the wilderness where it really belongs.

The clocks go backwards? Will Hay explains....

The clocks go backwards tonight adding to the general confusion that is the morning after. That "extra hour in bed" never seems to be of any use as most of us get up around the same time our body clocks tell us to.

Still at least it won't lead to this...

A dip into the world of the weird

It's Friday night, I'm still fighting off this damned cold that's doing the rounds and a lot of people are starting to prepare for Halloween. However I like to "dip in" to the world of the weird on You Tube every so often and one these channels "UFOmania" has been churning out lots of stuff this week, one of which I posted to Facebook about a US base suffering from an "alien attack".

I'm sure the real media would have noticed.... but still this latest effort with info apparently courtesy of the Russians explains how Mr Putin is preparing against a forthcoming invasion or some such nonsense. I mean, like, haven't you noticed how extreme the weather has been getting? Aliens of course.

Anyway here's a little bit of conspiracy mania to frighten you in your beds before the ghouls come out on Monday.

As for me? I'm off for an early night with a Lem-Sip (other cold cures are available) and will return.

Aliens willing of course!

Bake Off to By-Election

Over the last 24 hours the politico's on social media have been concentrating on the forthcoming by-election in Richmond triggered by the resignation of Zac Goldsmith over the Heathrow airport extension....

Meanwhile the masses have been watching BBC One's Bake Off final in their millions. Well done Candice by the way.

The decision of the Government to build a third runway at Heathrow is now under scrutiny. Good for business and job creation, the new scheme will involve a massive bridge over the M25 and eventually the loss of homes and more noise and pollution for the poor buggers that live there. How the balance is struck between economic necessity and environment is and always will be a tricky question.

However it is the politics of the forthcoming by-election that will be of interest. Already the Conservative Party has decided not to stand a candidate against Goldsmith which will avoid a much more public spat than necessary since if reelected Zac can be relied on to side with the Tories.

The Liberal-Democrats are already crowing about their chances and are fielding Sarah Olney as their candidate. Given that previously the Lib-Dems have done quite well in this part of London and seem to be on a roll they could poll well. Their chances could be increased if Labour's Deputy Leader Tom Watson gets his way.

Watson along with a couple of other Labour "notables" has seriously suggested that their party does not contest the by-election to give the Lib-Dems a "free run". Given the internal warfare going on inside the Labour Party this kind of makes sense. Labour are in no position to win in Richmond under even "normal" circumstances, let alone with the party falling apart under comrade Steptoes Corbyn's watch. I can't call it leadership. Man's a fool with even more foolish and somewhat dangerous advisors.

A Liberal Democrat resurgence could strengthen the middle ground in British politics. Cleggs gone alone with Cable and the rest and Tim Farron for all his shortcomings could build a re-invigorated centre party that in time could act as a catalyst for a major realignment in British politics if /when the moderates decide there is no longer hope of recapturing the Labour Party.

First the election must run it's course.....

Meanwhile I think the British public now quite disillusioned with the political classes will be more interested in the recipe for Candice's wonderful chocolate cake.

You really can have your cake and eat it.

Well sometimes anyway!

More University flakery

University standards have certainly been going down since the introduction of "trigger warnings" and "safe spaces" for the poor little souls who aren't ready for the real world. We've seen students in the USA walk out of lectures on Greek mythology because the content was "offensive".

Have these kids only ever seen Disney or Marvel Comic versions of these stories? The Greek Gods were a rather nasty lot when it came to meddling in human affairs and were rather brutal when seeking either revenge or taking what or who(usually women) that they wanted. Perhaps the students involved should, like, have actually read a book about them before enrolling.

There are plenty of other examples of student (and university) flakery, but the news that archeology students will get "trigger warnings" because the sight of bones might upset the poor little souls...

The Tab reports

Lecturer Gabriel Moshenka said that introducing trigger warnings were necessary as some students had served in the army and might induce psychological trauma from the content of the course.

Students affected are allowed to step outside without penalty, but are expected to catch up on all they have missed from the lecture.

A trigger warning allows academics to warn students at the beginning of a lecture that it might contain material that some students might find traumatic.

The decision to introduce the warnings was not in response to demand from students, but rather a precautionary measure taken by academic staff.

One asks what else they might expect to find when digging up the remnants of long lost civilisations and tombs.

I hope they don't watch horror movies.

Here's an excerpt from The Prisoner which may explain the lecturers concerns...or not!

Fingered as a Zionist

If there is one thing that I hope I have made clear over the years I have been running this little blog is that I do not subscribe to any particular ideology and prefer to my retain my political independence sticking to trade union activity where I have been able to make a small difference to at least a few people.

That is not to say I am without my own set of views on certain issues and have concentrated on just a few areas of politics (as I cannot possibly comment on everything) ranging from opposition to political and religious extremism, backing a variety of international trade union issues raised by LabourStart, promoting secularism and opposing religious influence over our rights as individual human beings.

I  am a freethinker, secularist and atheist.

I also support the fight for an independent Kurdistan and wish to see Tibet free from Chinese oppression.

I also stand up for Israel.

However given my views on the various "isms" I have never thought of myself as a "Zionist". I get called it a lot. I have a Jewish background (via my mother), but have never been part of the wider Jewish community in part because of where I grew up and also simply because I do not believe in god therefore a trip to the synagogue is not on my "to do" list.

That is not to say I do not self identify as a "Jew", it is a part of my ethnicity (the rest being English) and the older I get the more I realise there is a need to stand up to those who hold one of the oldest and most irrational of prejudices.

The first time I came across an anti-Semite was at a trade union conference where a man sporting a "Palestine Solidarity" badge told me he believed in the free movement of all people..except Jews.  He was carted off by another delegate before I recovered from my shock and exploded.

It was at this point I realised that the left had a problem with Jews and that "anti-Zionism" was much, much more than opposition to some of the policies of the Israeli government. This was at the time that the left was beginning to adapt to the growing Islam(ist) agenda and the "two states" solution was being pushed aside in their new found alliance with a backwards religion.

Warning signs had been around for a while. It wasn't just the reactionary and underhanded tactics of the Workers Revolutionary Party who took "Libyan gold" to finance their dreadful daily newspaper but had infected other parts of the left. The main organisation purporting to be the Fourth International (Mandel's USFI) had two organisations in Iran one which opposed the hijab and the other supported it.

What has happened under the mad mullahs is clear for all to see. Women's rights have been destroyed, gays are executed just for being of a different sexual orientation. Christians, B'hai's and anyone else that might prove a danger to the Islamic regime persecuted, imprisoned, tortured, raped and/or executed.

Saudi Arabia is the same. Backwards barbarism, and it's growing across the Muslim world. Activists who want freedom and democracy are in daily danger from these despots yet the left remains silent except for the occasional, token rant about the Saudi's being an agent of "Western Imperialism".



The concentration of the left on the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza leaves them ignoring the rights of the plight of the indigenous Sahrawi people denied their homeland by Morocco in former Spanish Sahara or the Nubians in Egypt or Sudan (let alone the plight of the Copts).



Do the left stand up for Kurdistan oppressed by Turkey, Iran and in the past Iraq? Do they call for action to stop the continuing genocide of the ancient Yazidi community.

No they just attack Israel, the only democracy with a properly elected parliament and independent judiciary in the whole of the region. Their call for the destruction of Israel is part of the deluded ideology of "anti-imperialism" which sees the "West" as evil and those who oppose our democratic way of life as heroes despite the obvious crimes of all the countries they give so-called "critical support" to. Actually these days it's not so "critical" as outright pandering to all the tin pot dictators backwards clergy and recidivist communists from Cuba through Iran to China.



The Jews, Kurds, Tibetans and others do not matter in these peoples world view. The fate of these peoples is irrelevant to the cause.

Red fascism by no other name.

And that's why I stand for Israel. I'm not a "Zionist" but neither do I think it's a dirty word.

By-election blues

Until yesterday most people were virtually ignoring the two by-elections that were due to take place. The first was a very low key affair as voters went solemnly to the polls to elect a replacement for the tragically murdered Labour MP Jo Cox.  Neither the Conservative Party, the Liberal Democrats, UKIP or the Greens contested the seat out of respect.

Labour candidate & former soap star (from Corrie) Tracy Brabin was opposed only by the usual assortment of nutters and fascists that inhabit the fringes of politics. Labour polled 86% of the vote on a 25% turnout.

Meanwhile Witney was supposedly a (very) safe Tory seat previously held by David Cameron with a whopping 20,000 vote majority. Nothing to see here right. The polls show The Conservatives with 47% of the vote, 17% ahead of the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats almost out the picture with just 8%, just half a dozen MP's and seemingly unforgiven by the electorate.

Yet rumours started spreading on social media the night before the election that not only was there a "Liberal surge" but they might even win. The latter quite wishful thinking, but a surge there certainly was.

Although the Conservative candidate won as expected, Robert Courts was left with a greatly reduced majority of just over five thousand with 17,313 votes (down by 15.2%) whist the Lib-Dem challenger increased her vote by 23.4% coming second (up from third) with 11,611.

Labour went down to third place with just 15% of the vote (down 2%). It could have been worse for Corbyn but not all is at seems.

So many people (myself included) had written off the Liberals because Clegg let everyone down so badly when he was in coalition with Cameron. Student Fees and PR his broken promises. The electorate punished the Lib-Dems by purging nearly all their MP's from parliament. They seemed finished for good.

However since the general election the Liberals have won around 20 council seats and are seemingly reviving. Labour is in such disarray it has become unelectable, the Liberal Democrats are the usual beneficiaries of any decline in Labour's support.

However this by-election was in a solid Tory seat. Clearly a lot of traditional voters switched votes. The question is why?

Is it Brexit? Grammar schools? Immigration?

By-elections are difficult to analyse as they usually have lower turnouts and sometimes there are protest votes which return to their usual loyalties come the election. One thing is clear though Labour has proved unattractive.

A Liberal Democrat resurgence could be good news for Labour moderates and increases the much needed possibility of a new political re-alignment.

I certainly hope so.

Musical Interlude Two - Hammerfall

Normal service will resume shortly so in the meantime here's another track from Hammerfall.

Musical Interlude - Anilah

And now for something a little different. Anilah hails from British Columbia and her music is well, just beautiful and the video that goes with this track is just stunning.

Put on your headphones and relax for the next fifteen minutes. It's worth the journey!

Gravity is white colonialism.... apparently

 

Whilst American and British students fight for safe spaces to prevent their pre-conceived ideas being challenged either by those who disagree or simply reality itself, some African students have moved against that final frontier of imperialism and colonialism science.

Science is "Eurocentric" according to these new radicals in South Africa.

The Times reports (no link£):

Sir Isaac Newton's law of gravitation has come in for particular criticism from the movement #sciencemustfall. In a meeting with the science faculty at the University of Cape Town, Kealeboga Ramaru, student leader, questioned  the cause of lightning and dismissed Sir Isaac's work as colonial.

I have a question for all the science people" she said. "There is a place in KNZ (KwaZulu-Natal Province) called Umhhlab'uyalingana..They believe that through the magic, you call it black magic, they call it witchcraft-you are able to send lightning to strike someone. Can you explain that scientifically, because it's something that happens.

Of course they are...

The Flat Earth Society were not available for comment as they were busy visiting the Hollow Earth where Nazi UFOs come from....

The world is truly going backwards...

Corbyn & Chakrabarti in denial over anti-Semitism

The release of the Parliamentary enquiry into anti-Semitism is damning and unsurprisingly Jeremy Corbyn is not happy particularly with it's specific criticisms of Lady Chakrabarti who went from "independent" to the House of Lords as the result of her whitewash of a report and is now in Labour's Shadow Cabinet.

How can this fool of a man not see the problem he has created for himself?

The full report can be found here: www.publications.parliament.uk

I have extracted part of the report addressing Corbyn & Chakrabarti's sordid role:

113.While the Labour Leader has a proud record of campaigning against many types of racism, based on the evidence we have received, we are not persuaded that he fully appreciates the distinct nature of post-Second World War antisemitism. Unlike other forms of racism, antisemitic abuse often paints the victim as a malign and controlling force rather than as an inferior object of derision, making it perfectly possible for an ‘anti-racist campaigner’ to express antisemitic views. Jewish Labour MPs have been subject to appalling levels of abuse, including antisemitic death threats from individuals purporting to be supporters of Mr Corbyn. Clearly, the Labour Leader is not directly responsible for abuse committed in his name, but we believe that his lack of consistent leadership on this issue, and his reluctance to separate antisemitism from other forms of racism, has created what some have referred to as a ‘safe space’ for those with vile attitudes towards Jewish people. This situation has been further exacerbated by the Party’s demonstrable incompetence at dealing with members accused of antisemitism, as illustrated by the saga involving the suspension, re-admittance and re-suspension of Jackie Walker. The ongoing membership of Ken Livingstone, following his outbursts about Hitler and Zionism, should also have been dealt with more effectively. The result is that the Labour Party, with its proud history of fighting racism and promoting equal rights, is seen by some as an unwelcoming place for Jewish members and activists.

114.The decision by the Leader of the Labour Party to commission an independent inquiry into antisemitism was a welcome one, notwithstanding subsequent criticisms. The Chakrabarti report makes recommendations about creating a more robust disciplinary process within the Labour Party, but it is clearly lacking in many areas; particularly in its failure to differentiate explicitly between racism and antisemitism. The fact that the report describes occurrences of antisemitism merely as “unhappy incidents” also suggests that it fails to appreciate the full gravity of the comments that prompted the inquiry in the first place. These shortfalls, combined with Ms Chakrabarti’s decision to join the Labour Party in April and accept a peerage as a nominee of the Leader of that Party, and her subsequent appointment as Shadow Attorney General, have thrown into question her claims (and those of Mr Corbyn) that her inquiry was truly independent. Ms Chakrabarti has not been sufficiently open with the Committee about when she was offered her peerage, despite several attempts to clarify this issue with her. It is disappointing that she did not foresee that the timing of her elevation to the House of Lords, alongside a report absolving the Labour Leader of any responsibility for allegations of increased antisemitism within his Party, would completely undermine her efforts to address this issue. It is equally concerning that Mr Corbyn did not consider the damaging impression likely to be created by this sequence of events.

115.The recommendations of the Chakrabarti report are further impaired by the fact that they are not accompanied by a clear definition of antisemitism, as we have recommended should be adopted by all political parties. We remain unconvinced of the robustness of the Labour Party’s code of conduct (and whether it will be effectively enforced), and the report does nothing to address a severe lack of transparency within the Party’s disciplinary process. There are examples of Labour members who have been accused of antisemitism, investigated by their Party, and then reinstated with no explanation of why their behaviour was not deemed to be antisemitic. The Labour Party, and all other political parties in the same circumstances, should publish a clear public statement alongside every reinstatement or expulsion of a member after any investigation into suspected antisemitism.

116.We see no good reason for the Chakrabarti report’s proposed statute of limitations on antisemitic misdemeanours. Antisemitism is not a new concept: an abusive, antisemitic tweet sent in 2013 is no more defensible than one sent in 2016. If the Labour Party or any other organisation is to demonstrate that it is serious about antisemitism, it should investigate all allegations with equal seriousness, regardless of when the behaviour is alleged to have taken place.

117.In its determination to be inclusive of all forms of racism, some sections of the Chakrabarti report do not acknowledgeJewish concerns, including its recommendations on training, which make no mention of antisemitism. This has generated criticism among some observers that antisemitism may be excluded from future training programmes. The Labour Party and all political parties should ensure that their training on racism and inclusivity features substantial sections on antisemitism. This must be formulated in consultation with Jewish community representatives, and must acknowledge the unique nature of antisemitism. If antisemitism is subsumed into a generic approach to racism, its distinctive and dangerous characteristics will be overlooked. In addition, the Labour Party’s disciplinary process must acknowledge the fact that an individual’s demonstrated opposition to other forms of racism does not negate the possibility that they hold antisemitic beliefs; nor does it neutralise any expression of these beliefs.

118.The Chakrabarti Report is ultimately compromised by its failure to deliver a comprehensive set of recommendations, to provide a definition of antisemitism, or to suggest effective ways of dealing with antisemitism. The failure of the Labour Party to deal consistently and effectively with antisemitic incidents in recent years risks lending force to allegations that elements of the Labour movement are institutionally antisemitic.

Musical Interlude: Heart

Taking a break on a Saturday night with this great little number from Heart.

Weekending.....

Photo: CC BY-SA

The Labour Party has dropped behind the Tories by 17%. Shameless Milne and the Stop the War Coalition are exposed as supporting all this countries enemies and the Pound is falling but what most people will remember is the great Marmite crisis of 2016 as this divisive product was taken off the shelves...

Certainly we are on the brink of an economic crisis as the fallout from Brexit takes hold. Meanwhile in the grand US of A the Presidential candidates row about (alleged) sexual misdemeanours.

Still theirs some good news and some odd news. Actually I can't think of any good news this week but the odd thing that happened was Bob Dylan winning the Nobel Prize for  (ahem) Literature. Thought he was a musician myself, but heck what do I know?

Anyway to end this strange week here's a little something from Mr Dylan himself singing over the opening scenes of the Watchmen movie.

Why this video?

Simply because I can.

Stop only the wars we don't agree with...

The Stop the War Coalition led by veteran Trotskyists Lyndsey German and John Rees in alliance with the stalinists of the Communist Party of Britain (Morning Star) has long been derided for not just it's one-sided anti-war campaigning but for very unsavoury political attitudes bordering on anti-Semitism which led to a purge of their organisations website.

However they are now exposed as just liars.

"The STWC can't demonstrate outside a foreign embassy as we can only influence UK policy"

Really? What's this then???



According to The Times (no link£):

Combined Russian & rebel forces have advanced on Ukrainian positions around the strategic port of Mariupol killing two soldiers and wounding 11...

..the two-and-a-half-year-war  conflict that has already cost almost 10,000 lives.

Like Aleppo the StWC has not acted.

They may not actually be agents of a foreign power but frankly they just as well might be.

The Stop the War Coalition are just Putin's lickspittles in British politics.

Resignation of Portsmouth Labour Party Chair

The following letter was sent to the Portsmouth Labour Party Executive by Rob Smith. This follows the departure of two (out of three) Labour Party Councillors, Ken Ferrett and John Ferrett. 

I am writing to inform you of my resignation from the Labour Party.

This was an incredibly difficult decision to make and I have agonised over this issue for several months.

I cannot with integrity and conviction remain part of a party led by a leader that I am fundamentally opposed to and will not vote for. It would be plainly ridiculous and dishonest for me to ask people to vote for a party leader and policy agenda that I have no confidence in and cannot unite behind. Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership has invited a wave of abhorrent and morally repulsive politics into the heart of the Labour Party. Rather than pride and tribalism, I feel repulsion and humiliation for what has become of the Labour Party, I cannot indulge or shelve these concerns for the purpose of unity. We have moved firmly away from the party I loved and believed in.

Jeremy Corbyn’s victory in the leadership election was compelling and absolute. The membership has clearly spoken and has strengthened Jeremy Corbyn’s mandate for change. The left emboldened by victory now seeks to irreversible change the party and will cast aside the compromise and consensus needed for party unity. It is inconceivable that the membership, now so heavily stacked to the left, will ever allow for a moderate centre ground politician to emerge as party leader. Would past leaders like Atlee, Wilson and Blair, who built electoral victories based on pragmatism and compromise with the electorate, be allowed to take us forward in today’s Labour Party? We risk becoming little more than a protest movement, reactive to and not leading change, and suspiciously viewing power as a compromise of principle. We have moved firmly away from the party I loved and believed in.

I had reflected on the possibility of staying and fighting on, making the case for the party centre ground and waiting for the inevitable failure of the Corbyn leadership. However, open and frank discussion no longer exists in Corbyn’s Labour Party, anything but slavish devotion to the leadership is shouted down and provokes a tirade of zealotry and abuse. In the past, inside Labour’s broad church, differing and opposing opinions could be reconciled because of our shared purpose and mutual respect. When Jeremy Corbyn inevitably loses the general election, the left will not walk away or reflect on where it went wrong, it will blame everyone but its self and redouble its efforts for political purity. This nightmare will not end with the passing of Jeremy Corbyn. I am no John Golding or Neil Kinnock. I have neither the energy or patience to fight a protracted war of attrition against the hard left. I cannot live my life from inside a bunker. Ultimately it all comes down to numbers, and tragically the numbers do not sit with those of us that wish to save the party and move us back to the mainstream.

I leave the Labour Party with happy memories and lasting friendships. I have worked with hugely generous and talented individuals within the local party. Political campaigning and membership asks much of the individual, from wet Saturdays on the doorstep to hours poring over leaflet design, but tribalism and a belief in your cause sustain you in these efforts. The unsung heroes of local politics are our partners and families, without their help and sacrifices so much of what we do would not be possible. I can no longer, saddled with a party leadership and agenda I do not believe in, justify the sacrifices and compromises I have made to my family life.

For those of us that believe in progressive, patriotic, centre grounds politics are only hope of moving forward is with a new party. The temporary truce between the PLP and Corbyn is a stubborn refusal to accept the reality that exists within the party and cannot reconcile their previous concerns in his leadership.

Rob Smith

Former Joint Chair of Portsmouth Labour Party.

Labour Youth attack Corbyn over SWP event

It seems Jeremy Corbyn's decision to attend an event organised by the Socialist Workers Party is causing dents in his "messianic" clean image. Corbyn must be aware of the events that led to the virtual collapse of the SWP.

First up a letter from Jasmin Beckett (Labour NEC Youth Rep)

Dear Jeremy,

Over the past 24 hours, I have received dozens of emails from young members, about your attendance at the ‘Stand Up To Racism’ event. As you were made aware before you attended, this event was largely organised by senior members of the SWP, an organisation with a well-documented record of covering up rape.

Prior to this event various organisations credited you with having withdrawn from the event after being told about the involvement of the SWP. It was therefore surprising that you did in fact attend and give a keynote speech at this event.

Young women in the party are concerned by your attendance and endorsement of this group, many including myself who are told by such groups our experiences of violence and sexism is not as bad as we say.

Having been asked by a range of women’s groups to withdraw from this event, I am disappointed that you chose to ignore their request and attend alongside senior SWP figures.

The young members who have contacted me have a range of questions and concerns they wished me to pass on, I have condensed these into three which I would be very grateful if you could answer at the earliest opportunity:

- As someone who is well aware of the SWP’s record of covering up rape, why did you think it appropriate to attend their event?

- Why did you reassure those women’s groups that you would not attend, only to go back on your word and give a keynote speech at the event?

- Can you commit to not sharing a platform with the SWP at any point in the future?

I look forward to your response.

Best wishes,

Jasmin Beckett
NEC Youth Rep

Here's a detailed reminder of what actually happened. It's not pleasant reading:

Moving forward means acknowledging mistakes and holding our leadership to account

by Simon F (Birmingham), Viv S & Rita M (Hackney)

This document is a narrative of the events leading up to and following a Disputes Committee (DC) hearing in October 2012 in which Comrade W accused a then CC member (M) of rape. We do not go into the detail of the case here but focus on the mishandling of the situation by the CC and their deliberate campaign of misinformation and intimidation, supported by a layer of leading comrades, once the case became known in the wider party. In producing this narrative we hope to elucidate the issues needing redress before the party can move forward.

Before the hearing

At Marxism 2010 two woman comrades (Sadia J and Donna G) approached former CC member Viv S to discuss a serious allegation regarding sexual harassment involving the then national secretary (M) and a young woman comrade (W). This allegation surrounded incidents that had occurred a year earlier.

The two comrades discussed the incidents with Viv and, on behalf of comrade W, asked if she would approach the CC and ask for their intervention. At this stage comrade W stated that she did not feel emotionally able to take part in a formal dispute hearing.

Viv raised the issue with Charlie K that evening. Charlie was the CC member whose department Viv worked in. He took the matter extremely seriously and said as the CC was about to enter into the post Marxism international meeting that he would meet with Alex C to discuss how to proceed. Viv asked Charlie to confirm what steps were going to be taken to resolve the situation and to keep her informed. She asked Charlie to agree that neither M nor the CC would be told the identity of the women who had come forward on behalf of comrade W. He agreed.

Charlie informed Viv within 24 hours that he and Alex had confronted M on the Tuesday following Marxism and that he had denied any knowledge of comrade W’s claims. In the days that followed Charlie informed Viv that the CC had asked Hannah D to meet comrade W to find out more about her situation and what resolution she was seeking. At the meeting comrade W disclosed a great deal of information including details of text messages from M to her. Sadia attended the meeting at comrade W’s request.

Following this meeting Charlie and Hannah were sent to comrade W’s district by the CC to meet with comrade W to discuss what resolution she wanted. Again Sadia attended the meeting at comrade W’s request. At the meeting Charlie apologised on behalf of M and stated that M’s position would be reviewed. She was told that she could go to the DC at any point should she wish to.

Looking back, we think it was a great burden to put on comrade W. She was making accusations of sexual harassment at the very least. Yet the CC abdicated all responsibility and made her entirely responsible for deciding the political outcome of the situation. She was clearly emotionally distressed and unable to think through how she wanted the situation resolved beyond saying that she needed M to leave her alone and to stop being the national face of the SWP. In retrospect, we recognize it would have been helpful with comrade W’s consent to have approached the DC rather than the CC, especially considering the case was concerning a CC member.

The day after M was confronted, Sadia and Donna began to receive telephone calls from Weyman B who left messages demanding that they return his calls. When Donna answered, Weyman told her he knew that they were the two comrades who had come forward and he was angry with them for doing so. He declared, “nothing is hermetically sealed” and “I know all about your plans and your little meeting with Viv”. Weyman met her and accused her of being a traitor and told her she was wrong to approach Viv and should have spoken to him instead. Sadia spoke to Viv and Hannah and asked why their names had been exposed. Hannah confirmed that the CC had not discussed who had come forward to report the case and immediately reported the situation to Alex C asking for an explanation as to the leak and that Weyman be confronted. Additionally, Viv reported Weyman to Charlie who said he would raise the matter. We have as yet still not received any information regarding how the information was disclosed, and Weyman has not apologised for his behaviour.

Following this Weyman led a sustained campaign of bullying against Donna, who was working for UAF at the time. She was later sacked from her role in UAF which she felt was a result of coming forward to raise comrade W’s case. Donna took Weyman to the Disputes Committee the following year – a case she lost and which led her to leave the SWP.

Unfortunately, comrade W pulled further and further away from the party and during the pre-conference period and in autumn 2010 she resigned because, although M would no longer be national secretary, he would remain on the CC. She felt she could not continue to be a member while M was on the leadership. She described her distress at receiving bulk party emails signed by him, or being invited to events he was due to speak at.

In the run up to the 2011 conference it became clear that some comrades were already organising to defend M and had been informed about the case, even though the case was confidential. They set about undermining comrades W, Sadia and her partner Simon F who was the district organiser in W’s district at the time. Pete J, a member in comrade W’s district, went as far as to question why Sadia and Simon were still in communication with comrade W.

The conference in 2011 was one of the lowest points in our party’s history. Alex C introduced the CC slate. When it came to the question of M’s position he used the words “sexual harassment” to describe the complaint raised against M. However, Alex started his introduction by referring to the postings on Socialist Unity, thus posing the situation as a matter of party loyalty and unity against a scurrilous attack by sectarians. For many people this is what initially registered, not the question of “sexual harassment”. Alex also fudged the issue of whether M had been moved from his post as national secretary because of the sexual harassment charge, claiming that while the CC had promised to look in to M’s role, M was tired of being national secretary and wanted to return to the industrial department – implying it was his choice.

M was allowed to stand up and make a grandstanding speech, under the disguise of responding to sectarian attacks by Socialist Unity, while comrades clapped and stamped their feet. The issue of women’s oppression was dismissed and undermined. Instead of a serious discussion of M’s role, the session degenerated in to a cheerleading session in which a leading member, who conference had been told was accused of sexual harassment, made himself out to be a victim and received a standing ovation by people who claim to stand against women’s oppression. Comrade W had no voice and no chance to correct this one sided account of events.

We had no idea that this would take place and were shocked and unsure of how to respond. Sadia spoke to stop the question of W being swept aside. She did so in a careful and considered way yet she was attacked by many leading members for doing so. A leading comrade told her partner Simon that she should be shot for making the contribution. Helen S climbed over chairs to confront her stating “how dare you make a contribution like that without giving anyone the chance to come back on it” – despite herself having made a contribution in defence of M in the same discussion. She was later forced to apologise by a member of the CC although she still told the comrade she thought her contribution was wrong.

A number of members contacted Alex C and Pat S that evening to ask for clarity and demanding that the situation be addressed at the conference the following day. A statement was made which, while attempting to address the problems caused the previous day, was unable to address the damage done by M being allowed to grandstand at the conference.

In Autumn 2011 comrade W re-joined the party because, as she told the DC later, she did not believe that there was anywhere else a revolutionary socialist could turn if they wanted to be active. In the interim, Sadia and Simon had kept in touch with her. She had been through a course of counselling to deal with what had happened to her. In the months that followed comrade W was given further confidence by the party’s brilliant handling of the political discussion surrounding the Assange case. As a result she felt more strongly than ever that she wanted to come forward and resolve her case and felt she could trust the party’s structures to handle it seriously.

In September 2012 she asked Sadia to speak to Hannah and inform her that she wanted to take out a disputes case against M and that she was accusing him of rape. It took a very long time and a great deal of courage for comrade W to reach this point. Hannah advised her to contact Pat S immediately. Comrade W asked Sadia to be her advocate and to speak to comrades on her behalf. Sadia phoned Pat and Charlie the following day to inform them.

As soon as the calls were made to Pat and Charlie things began to move towards a DC hearing. In the run up to the hearing there were numerous problems:1. Comrade W was not contacted by the CC to be told that M had been suspended pending the hearing, so was anxious that he may come to her district or confront her.2. She was not told that when she sent her statement to the DC it would forwarded to M.3. She was told that she would not have access to M’s statement, which meant that he was able to prepare his defence while she had no knowledge of what he would say against her.4. She was not advised as to who his witnesses were or what their statements contained – yet M had access to her list of witnesses and statements.

Pat tried to make the process as painless for comrade W as possible. She was told beforehand about who would be sitting on the panel and was asked if there was anyone that she did not want involved. She asked that Rose C be removed as she had knowledge of the case and had been approached for advice by Sadia and Simon as a DC member, yet had failed to provide any support or guidance. Comrade W did not know anyone else on the panel – it was starkly clear that this was not a committee of her peers. Pat also phoned comrade W to talk her through the procedures and ask if there was anything that could be done to make her feel comfortable. But none of these actions could make up for the hearing itself and the fallout thereafter.

The hearing

We were asked to arrive at the venue at 10am that morning in October 2012. We were told that the committee would have a discussion and they would then call comrade W when they were ready. Over 4 hours later, we were still waiting. This took its toll on W. There did not seem to be any regard for the fact that the long wait would be highly stressful for her. She kept pacing the room wondering what was happening.

Esme C read out the legal definition of rape – saying that this would be the DC benchmark. At no point was there any sense that the DC was ill equipped to attempt to make a judgement on a rape allegation.
The initial questions following comrade W’s evidence were agreed between the committee and asked by Pat alone, at comrade W’s request. The questions initially focused on trying to establish the facts and clarify dates.

It was following M’s evidence the questioning become inappropriate and at times reactionary – the questions were asked by individual panel members rather than through Pat.

Comrade W was given no warning about the nature of the questions. She had not seen M’s statement or been able to hear what his witnesses were saying. The questions ranged from a supposed relationship she had had with an older comrade in her district to asking why she had gone for a drink with M and about her previous boyfriends, with specific people named and whether the relationships had been full sexual relationships.

Rita sat through the hearing with comrade W offering support and intervention when she became distressed. Rita confronted the panel over the inappropriate questioning, noting that questions about previous or other sexual or personal relationships were irrelevant to whether M had raped comrade W.
Comrade W was also continuously asked if she had been “in a relationship” with M, and this was asked of her witnesses too. There did not seem to be an understanding that rape can occur within relationships and therefore that this line of questioning was inappropriate and ignorant. She was also asked about an incident with M which she had tried to forget . Comrade W became very upset and left the room in tears saying that they thought she was a “slut who asked for it”. Rita made the point that people who had suffered this kind of trauma did not always remember in a linear manner and that this form of questioning was not helpful.

The hearing took place over two days and comrade W was left waiting for hours on end while the DC deliberated. The verdict was delivered at 10pm on the Sunday night, just before we had to leave the venue. There was no explanation as to how it was reached, no offer of support or guidance, no clarity on how she was meant to handle the outcome. The verdict was simply that the accusation of rape was unproven and a statement would follow in a few days. It took over three weeks.

After the hearing:

1. Another woman comes forward:
Following the hearing a second woman (comrade X) came forward having heard about comrade W’s case. She met initially with Viv having heard about her role in comrade W’s case. Viv suggested that she meet with Pat to raise her allegations.

Comrade X met with Pat to discuss her own complaint against the same comrade, M. She said that she would like to give evidence on behalf of comrade W and herself in a reconvened hearing. M was called on to answer the case.

Following a full day hearing, she was simply told that her evidence was not relevant. She was given no advice or support and the allegations she raised were simply ignored. Considering that she was accusing M of sexual harassment, it seems utterly irresponsible for the DC and CC to simply pretend that this information did not matter. If any member brings a charge of sexual harassment against another, especially a full time employee and leading comrade, the leadership should out of political prudence and principle take action to resolve the situation as quickly as possible.

X also faced inappropriate questioning by some members of the DC. CC member Amy L asked if she had misconstrued M’s approaches as he was a friendly man who often bought her coffee, while DC elected member Maxine B asked her about her drinking habits.

2. Political undermining, bullying and intimidation of comrades involved in the hearings:
Comrade W’s treatment following the hearing is nothing short of shameful. In her district she was simply ignored as if she ceased to exist. When she did see members and tried to talk to them, her experience was one of abuse and bullying. Geoff D informed her “It is not appropriate for me to speak to you”, while Bridget P who confronted her on the street near her home called her “a silly girl” stating that 14 year olds get groomed not 19 year olds.

Comrades also accused her of going to the Daily Mail when the story was leaked, despite comrade W’s clear distress at the press coverage and fear of exposure. Some comrades even arranged meetings in the café area at comrade W’s workplace, despite her having asked them not to do so. This caused her great distress and considering the number of cafés in the city was cruel. Charlie, when confronted with this, argued it was not fair to the comrades to ask them to meet elsewhere, despite W’s distress – part of his argument was that it would appear that W’s allegations were true if he intervened. After repeated complaints the CC were forced to intervene and stop the comrades meeting there. There were even reports that she was a member of another political organization and in league with former members deliberately trying to smash the SWP.

Each attack on comrade W and her supporters was reported to the CC but there was no intervention to calm the situation down and no consideration of how to support W’s continued political activity. There was no consideration for the fallout in the district – rumour and gossip were allowed rather than political clarity.

At the same time, it became clear that there was a concerted effort to undermine Simon and Sadia for supporting comrade W. Many district members stopped answering their calls and refused to work with them on building the district appeal event which they were organising. It was clear that undermining the credibility of the people supporting comrade W was more important than building the party. The new district organiser also ignored them and they felt undermined at meetings. It was only following repeated complaints by local comrades that the CC was forced to intervene – and again this had no effect to resolve the situation.

In addition, in the weeks that followed the hearing it became clear that a faction had emerged within the CC and the party to defend and exonerate M. Leading members like Weyman B, Amy L, Judith O, Helen S, Doug M, Maxine B, Rhetta M, Mark K, Roddy S, Paul H and Rahul P to name a few led the campaign. Following the first conference in 2013, Anna G even launched a financial appeal for M, sending emails around asking for donations.

The lies spread included accusations that we were in collusion with the state to destroy the party, that W was a women scorned because M broke up with her, that it was just a relationship that ended badly even though W had made clear no relationship had occurred, and politically we were labeled autonomist feminists with a secret agenda to undermine democratic centralism and the Leninist tradition.

We sent numerous emails to the CC asking for the lies and slanders to be acted on. Numerous comrades sent personal emails to the CC following being told these lies personally by CC members and leading comrades or after witnessing bullying in branches and districts first hand. The CC did nothing.
Charlie did however find it appropriate to ring and question Sadia, who had most closely supported W, and to email her threatening her and the rest of W’s witnesses with disciplinary action should we discuss the case with anyone. And while the CC failed to intervene, they allowed M to continue his work and even refused to act when M spoke at a UAF rally in Waltham Forest while suspended.

3. Blocking our democratic rights:

The CC took extraordinary steps to block our democratic right to challenge the DC report and to gain clarity on the outcome of the hearing.

Comrade W supported by the four comrades involved in the DC hearing as her witnesses and support informed the CC of their intention to challenge the hearing outcome. We asked on numerous occasions how we should do so, and sought clarity with both the CC and DC on what information could be raised with comrades within the boundaries of confidentiality. We approached Charlie and the CC on numerous occasions requesting that a solution be sought so that the situation could be resolved. The CC at no point met with any of us to try and resolve it. Viv wrote to the CC as a former CC member asking for intervention – no intervention was forthcoming.

In order to ensure that a full, informed debate took place at conference, we asked the CC to allow us to submit a short motion to conference for the DC session asking for a DC commission to be established and a review of procedures for rape and sexual harassment cases. Charlie and Shaun D from the conference arrangements committee informed us that we would be not be allowed to do so because we had not passed the motion through a relevant party structure. This is despite the fact that we had been told not to discuss the case under threat of discipline which made it impossible to raise in a branch. We asked the CC to reconsider this position and to allow us to put forward a motion. The CC refused to allow us to put forward a motion.

Finally, in desperation and in an attempt to end the rumors going round the party, which were already causing serious political damage, we submitted a statement to IB1 for conference 2013 simply clarifying why we were challenging the DC outcome. In it we made explicit W’s request that she did not want a second hearing or the outcome of the case revisited. Comrade W felt unable to take part in a second hearing following the emotional trauma of the first and because she felt betrayed by the process. At best we hoped we could learn from the mistakes made, and end the culture of bullying and intimidation. In the document put forward to the IB we asked for conference to demand an investigation into the practice of the DC and to set procedures should future cases of a similar nature arise. The CC refused to print it.

As a result, we formed a faction of 30 comrades to ensure our right to put forward the statement. The CC refused to allow us to form a faction. The statement is below at the end of this document.
Throughout the pre-conference period the CC and the M faction organised across districts to stop us being allowed to go to conference. Despite conference being the only place where challenges to the DC can be brought, attempts were made to exclude us. We were all active comrades who had in three of our four cases worked for the party until quite recently and were leading district members who had been to every conference throughout most of our party membership. Yet in our aggregates we were called liars for not discussing the case or the challenge in our districts and this was used as an argument to stop us going to conference. We were accused of having ulterior political motives. The CC members in these aggregates did not defend our rights to go to conference and challenge the DC. The lies about our motives were allowed to continue – that we were driven by a political agenda and wanted to challenge perspectives rather than simply wanting to ensure that mistakes which could
destroy our party’s reputation for fighting women’s oppression were addressed.

Moving forward

We believe comrades should know the position of comrade W: she has been severely damaged by the mishandling of the case and the fallout which followed. She came forward to the CC and DC trusting that her organisation would behave in a principled fashion. She has been hounded, isolated and ostracised. As a result, she has left the SWP and feels she has no choice but to leave the city she lives and studies in because she cannot bear constantly seeing or being afraid of seeing the comrades who have played a role in making her life so difficult.

The Socialist Workers Party is a disgrace and the Labour & Trade Union Movement should have nothing to do with it. That includes you Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott.

Divisions in the Corbyn Camp

Photo: By Alex Beltyukov

Jeremy Corbyn attended a couple of far-left rallies this weekend but has faced criticism for both. The first was a front for the Socialist Workers Party called Stand up to Racism saw Corbyn sitting alongside Islamists and those who demean the Holocaust. 

Harry's Place outlines the list of shame:

The conference is organised by Unite Against Racism, which has an impeccable record of fighting against anti-Semitism in all its forms, even if it on occasion omits millions of Jews from its list of those who perished in the Holocaust. The lead speaker appears to be Jeremy Corbyn himself, who needs no introduction. Ably supporting him are, among others:

• Diane Abbott, the new Shadow Home Secretary;
• Owen Jones (who, sadly, appears to have made a “choice” that is increasingly clear);
• UCU General Secretary Sally Hunt;
• Harun Rashid Khan, Secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain, whose website still carries a statement that trivialises the Holocaust by likening it to the Palestinian “genocide”;
• Salma Yacqoob, former leader of the Respect Party and current head of the Birmingham Stop the War Coalition, who described the 7/7 bombings as “reprisal attacks”;
• David Rosenberg, recently seen deflecting concerns about anti-Semitism within the Labour Party, by referring to Conservative policies from the 1930s;
• Malia “Zionist-led media” Bouattia, NUS President;
• and, of course, former Guantanamo Bay detainee Moazzam Begg.

Then of course there was the latest Stop the War conference (not sure as usual which war or whose armies they want to stop) but one Syrian dissident got himself removed for raising a protest about the policy Corbyn and his acolytes pursue. The assembled drones simply chanted "No more war" rather than listen to anyone that doesn't support their blinkered views.

This led to the publication of the following letter from some of Corbyn's more thoughtful supporters:

Dear Jeremy,

We write as members of the Labour Party and Momentum, as socialist activists, or as other supporters of your leadership of the Labour Party. We agree wholeheartedly with your opposition to militarism and nuclear weapons, and your call for an end to British arms exports to countries such as Saudi Arabia. Yet we are concerned by your silence – thus far – on the ongoing slaughter of civilians by Russian and Assad-regime forces in Syria.

We share your scepticism about kneejerk military responses to the situation in Syria, such as the bombing campaign against ISIS proposed by David Cameron last autumn. We are not asking you to back Western interventions of this kind, but simply to say clearly and unequivocally that the actions of Assad and Russia in Syria are barbaric war crimes, and that you will seek to end them, and to hold their perpetrators to account.

We applaud your efforts, over decades, to end the crimes of brutal regimes supported by Western powers. But we do not believe that this exhausts the duties of anti-imperialists, socialists and peace activists in Western countries. The fact that Assad is supported not by the USA or Britain, but by Russia and Iran, does not make his crimes any less horrific, or the political future he represents for the people of Syria any less dismal. Nor does it mean that Western political leaders are powerless in acting to oppose these crimes.

We know only too well that there are those in the anti-war movement who will denounce any move critical of Russia, Iran, or Assad as tantamount to support for Western imperialist intervention. We also know that there are those on the right of British politics who will claim any such move as a concession to their policy of militaristic grandstanding. The debate on Syria has been polarised between these two positions – scrupulous “non-intervention” in the face of massive carnage enabled by Russian intervention, versus support for bombing campaigns as part of a Western “war on terror”. We have all been asked to take up a position in these terms. But the terms are false.

We appreciate your concern not to lend support to right-wing calls for fruitless bombing campaigns. But in the face of the horrors being perpetrated across Syria, with impunity, and above all by Russian and Assad-regime forces, we believe socialists and anti-war activists cannot simply look on in silence. We ask that you condemn, clearly and specifically, the actions of Assad and Russia in Syria, which have caused the overwhelming majority of civilian deaths and which present the biggest obstacle to any workable solution to the Syrian crisis.

We also urge you to lend your wholehearted support to practical measures to support civilians and pressure the regime to end its attacks, such as airdrops of aid to besieged civilians by British military forces. Guaranteeing delivery of humanitarian aid to civilians is not only a way to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people at risk of disease and starvation. It is also a non-violent and humanitarian way to pressure the regime into a negotiated political solution to the conflict, by undermining a key part of its strategy: the “kneel or starve” campaigns deployed against opposition areas since 2013. “Food not bombs” should be the rallying cry, not “Hands off Syria”, which only gives the Assad regime and Russia carte blanche to continue with their slaughter.

Failure to act on this issue now threatens to undermine practically and politically much of the work done over many years by the anti-war movement. The legacy of yourself and the anti-war movement over Syria must not be one of silence and inaction in the face of such momentous atrocities.

This letter was signed by some 70 individuals not happy with the great leaders stance on this issue including fellow blogger Jim Denham & ex RMT Executive member Janine Booth.

Stop the election of Human Rights Abusers to UN body

Saudi Arabia Seeks Re-Election to UN Rights Council * UN Watch Launches Opposition Campaign in Canadian Parliament, UN, NYU

NEW YORK, Oct. 7, 2016 — At a Canadian Parliament press conference held on Wednesday in Ottawa, MPs from all of the country's major political parties joined dissidents and families of political prisoners as former justice minister Irwin Cotler and UN Watch Executive Director Hillel Neuer urged democracies to oppose the re-election of Saudi Arabia, Russia, China and Cuba to the UN Human Rights Council.

Asked to respond, Foreign Minister Stéphane Dion said “Canada will announce its decision in due time, but what I can say is that the strong voice of Canadians speaking for human rights is something we also consider, especially when you have a champion like Irwin Cotler.”

The dissidents and activists also presented at a United Nations press conference in New York yesterday, and at a panel last night hosted by New York University.

The series of high profile events was organized by UN Watch, Human Rights Foundation, and the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights, founded and headed by Prof. Cotler.

More information on this and their other campaigns please go to: www.unwatch.org

Another nail in the coffin

The announcement tonight that Diane Abbott has been made Shadow Home Secretary in Steptoe's cabinet is just another nail in the coffin that is known as the Labour Party. A woman who who managed to insult half the bloody country by calling Brexit voters racist is considered suitable for that role? Un-bloody-believable.

And what's more it's distracted from a couple of potential "gaffs" from Theresa May and Anne Rudd which lefties have tried picking up on as "nationalism". Abbott is as toxic as Corbyn to the vast majority of the electorate many of whom will recall as Labour fights the return of grammar schools refused to send her kids to comprehensives and paid for private education.

There is clearly a problem on the left that it cannot see and what's more will never acknowledge. The bottom line is these socialists, especially the one's in organised groups and factions regard themselves as principled leaders of the working classes. Such attitudes have permeated the left since the writing of the Communist Manifesto.

All thetalk of "false consciousness" and "class consciousness" have led the left to consider that they and they alone have the right ideas "if only" and "through struggle" the workers will adopt on the road to utopia.

Never occurs to them that workers might actually simply disagree with the comrades in the first place.

Theresa May is making a charge to the centre ground actually admitting there is a need for government intervention to make society fairer, admits the rich got off bloody lightly during the recent economic crisis, attacked corporations over tax avoidance and openly stated working class families are worse off.

The reason for this is she wants to restore the "social contract" in society that allows capitalism to work. And to be honest that's what the vast majority of people want.  People just want a better deal for themselves and their families. Everyone accepts there are those who will always be better off but resent the way this has got out of hand.

The time has come for reform.

But economics alone do not motivate peoples votes or outlooks. People do not see Corbyn as someone capable of protecting them. His softness on terrorism and unwillingness to defend our nation are of concern. There are also legitimate concerns over immigration which isn't helped by the left calling anyone who raises the issue a racist.

Open borders is not an option. Immigration has to be controlled. There will always be some that's how the world works but after seeing the result of Germany opening it's borders it is no wonder that there is a growing adverse reaction to the large numbers of young men who have abandoned their womenfolk to come to Europe.

This question must be addressed rationally without resorting to the banal sloganeering adopted by either the far-right or the far-left who make debates toxic.

A prime example of where the left gets it wrong is over serious crime committed by individual immigrants who are not deported after their sentence is served.  The primary function of the state is to protect it's citizens.

If someone from abroad commits such crimes, they should do the time and get the boot. These cases where the criminals "human rights" are put before the victims outrage ordinary folk.

Meanwhile as the deluded followers of Corbyn march ever forward to taking control of Labour the opposition required of and in a democracy is failing badly.

I fear at the next election there will be just one choice on the ballot paper and the only other option would be not to vote at all.

What a sad day for democracy that will be.

Tory Toffs & Trots

Whilst everyone focuses on Momentum, the Jackie Walker affair and the continuing fallout inside the Labour Party it has been almost overlooked that the Conservative Party is rebranding one of it's youth movements again following bullying and a resulting suicide.

The Evening Standard reports:

Shamed Tory youth wing Conservative Future is to be given a new name following a bullying scandal.

A senior Conservative figure said the party wants to encourage young members to join and campaign following Brexit, but admitted a new image and governance structure was needed to restore its reputation.

Conservative Future’s national executive was suspended by the Tory HQ in November last year and organiser Mark Clarke banned from the party for life after allegations of bullying, sexually inappropriate behaviour and blackmail were made against him by several young activists.

Two months earlier student Elliott Johnson, 21, had named Mr Clarke in a note before he killed himself on train tracks in Bedfordshire. Mr Clarke denies any wrongdoing. 

Older readers may recall the furor over the Federation of Conservative Students. These charmers (referred to as Maggie's Militant Tendency) used to parade around in "Hang Mandela" t-shirts. The Conservative Home website reminds us:

The FCS often behaved like an extreme left-wing organisation - seeking ideological purity throughout its ranks. It attempted to disaffiliate colleges and universities that were controlled by 'wets' or other 'unsound' undesirables. It appeared to war with other Tories as much as with the National Union of Students - 'the last closed shop' it hated so much. The wets took their revenge in 1986 when 'a riot' of drunken FCS members at a Loughborough University conference caused what was reported at the time as thousands of pounds of damage (although Tim Hames reported tonight that the damage was actually very slight). The FCS was successfully spun against by one of its 'wet targets' - a young Nick Robinson who went on to report on today's political spinners.

The FCS was finally disbanded by Tory Chairman Norman Tebbit. The last straw was a copy of the FCS magazine which branded former Conservative Prime Minister Harold Macmillan a war criminal for agreeing to the deportation of Cossacks back to Stalin's Soviet Union. Tebbit had to get a court order to stop the magazine's distribution.

That last paragraph reminds me so so much of the Moamentum types rantings against Tony Blair...

Musical Interlude: Tarja Turunen

A quick break from the political scene with a beautiful piece of music from Tarja Turunen the former lead singer with Finnish band Nightwish whom I also highly recommend.

Longer than most pieces I post here but well worth a listen.

Momentum sort of remove Jackie Walker

In a move designed to be seen to act but to try and placate the many supporters of Jackie Walker inside Momentum their Central Committee has issued the following statement:

A statement from Momentum's Steering Committee

Momentum’s Steering Committee has voted, seven to three, to remove Jackie Walker as its Vice Chair, a position it elected her to. She remains a member of Momentum and its Steering Committee.

Jackie’s actions at Labour Conference, in her subsequent Channel 4 interview, and by not understanding concern caused by her statements, have led the Steering Committee to view her behaviour as irresponsible and lose confidence in her as Vice Chair.

Having read reports of what Jackie Walker is alleged to have said, listened to the leaked video, and heard Jackie’s version of events, the Committee does not regard any of the comments she appears to have made, taken individually, to be antisemitic. However, the Committee does consider her remarks on Holocaust Memorial Day and on security of Jewish schools to be ill-informed, ill-judged and offensive. In such circumstances, the Committee feels that Jackie should have done more to explain herself to mitigate the upset caused and should have been careful about statements on this and related subjects, whatever her record as an anti-racist, which the Committee applauds.

Momentum is concerned that footage of a training session was leaked to the press. The leak is unacceptable and undermines much needed political education. Momentum also calls on Labour to apply the principles laid down in the Chakrabarti report in its investigation of Jackie. On the basis of the evidence the Committee has seen, Jackie should not be expelled from the Labour Party.

So Walker stays as part of Momentums's leadership and they deflect the blame on to "leaked footage" of her disgraceful remarks. Apparently she just didn't "explain herself very well.

Really?

Her anti-Zionism has like so many of the far left "crossed the Rubicon" and is based on a hate for the worlds only Jewish country making demands on it that would not be expected of any other. That is Israel's destruction.

One of her more deranged supporters Tony Greenstein described the Jewish Labour Movements meeting thus:

"This was no training event. It was an Israeli state sponsored honey trap."

You couldn't make that crap up.

Momentum are clearly a party within a party with their own agenda, committees and structure. Undoubtedly this move will cause fractures within their group as Walker not only has a lot of supporters but the bulk of their members either do not take anti-Semitism seriously or just ignore it as an inconvenience.

Labour needs to rid itself of this cuckoo in it's nest. 

The TSSA union should start by kicking Momentum out of it's headquarters.

First they will come for us Zio's....

The "new kinder politics" has been on display outside the Conservative Party conference today with such slogans as "The only cuts are Tories on guillotine"....with a severed head on the placard. With Labour needing votes from other parties I'm not sure how well that will go down when these charming individuals turn up on the doorstep.

Except these half-professional demonstrators are not likely to be motivated to do the real hard work that's required to win elections anyway. It'll be up to those poor buggers who have always been in the Labour Party to do the donkey work whilst the new breed of puritans dominate the party.

The future of Labour can be seen in the rantings of John Rees, a close ally of Corbyn though not actually in the Labour party because he runs a tiny Trotskyist sect called counterfire that in turn controls the viciously anti-Western democracy Stop the war Coalition. He braided a Corbyn ally for not toeing "the line":“

You’re only there, you are only in the shadow cabinet, because Jeremy Corbyn put you there. So start defending Jeremy Corbyn’s policy on Trident and Nato and arms spending.”

Jeremy's policy? Actually he's supposed to promote the agreed Labour Party policy which erm.. wasn't the one Corbyn wanted. Lewis's speech was altered on the autocue by the unelected commissar Seumas Milne. And these types lecture others on democracy!

Momentums's growing toxicity is ever growing. John McDonnell's Irish connections have come under scrutiny again today as The Sunday Times reveals not one of his "youthful" indiscretions over the IRA but a more recently in 2012 by holding a meeting with Irish republicans opposed to peace process in the House of Commons. 

McDonell and Corbyn remember were opposed to the peace process and Corbyn when asked refused to condemn IRA violence when pressed no less than five times.

A man of peace don't make me laugh.

Then there's another of his idiot aides, one Shelley Asquith who apparently dismisses the threat of Islamic extremism and wants to make the anti-terror strategy "unworkable" to the point of encouraging individuals to break the law.

We already know that Corbyn is "uncomfortable with a shoot to kill policy if Islamic extremists start gunning people down in the street. I really don't think the rest of us who are the potential victims of these attacks would feel at uncomfortable with such a policy. In fact I'd bloody well expect our government to protect us.

The toxic hypocrisy of the Corbynista left is visible to all rational thinkers. Motivated by hatred they will only take us to a dark place. 

First they will come us "Zio's", then they will come for you!

Momentum heading to a split?

Photo: Mo'mentum Trumpton

The continuing crisis over the rantings of Jackie Walker has seen one of the main trade union backers (TSSA) threaten to withdraw support from Momentum if she isn't removed.That in itself would be a blow for Jon Lansmans private fiefdom as TSSA host Momentums offices. Walker herself admitted on Facebook last night that she had been suspended from the Labour Party. For the second and final time one would hope.

Despite this Walker still has her supporters including her partner, one Graham Bash who issued a statement along with some other far-left reprobates last night. Whilst that and the support from the obscenely biased "anti-Zionist" website Electronic Intifada is not unexpected she has supporters amongst the rank & file of Momentum who just can't see past their own blinkered world view.

Here's some examples from Facebook helpfully tweeted by Tim C



Of course the sight of the far-left fighting amongst themselves is nothing new.. If wasn't happening now over the dreadful Walker woman it would be something else.

The Momentum committee meets tomorrow and is "expected" to remove Walker from her post as Vice-Chair of their organisation. Thing is Momentums leaders are not elected despite all their protest about democracy so how Walkers supporters (of whom there are are seemingly far too many of) will react is not known. However a split is not beyond the realms of possibility....