Defend the SSP! Oppose a split!

[Fisher_Gate]

The ISG Political Committee have issued a statement. Don't ask me anything about it - I'm not a member of the ISG and know nothing about their internal debates, and I don't live in Scotland. The ISG leadership appear to be supporting the McCombes group appeal for a United Left, while criticising some of their members who have put their name to an open letter critical of this.

http://www.socialistresistance.net/sspcrisis.htm

My personal sympathy, as an outsider, is with the United Left statement which appears to be a considered and measured response to the crisis. I don't know what the SWP and CWI hope to achieve by aligning themselves with the Sheridan-led group who appear to be taking the SSP to the brink of self-destruction.

 

[junius]

The ISG Political Committee have issued a statement. Don't ask me anything about it - I'm not a member of the ISG and know nothing about their internal debates, and I don't live in Scotland. The ISG leadership appear to be supporting the McCombes group appeal for a United Left, while criticising some of their members who have put their name to an open letter critical of this.

http://www.socialistresistance.net/sspcrisis.htm

My personal sympathy, as an outsider, is with the United Left statement which appears to be a considered and measured response to the crisis. I don't know what the SWP and CWI hope to achieve by aligning themselves with the Sheridan-led group who appear to be taking the SSP to the brink of self-destruction.

Well, I think we know what the SWP is up to.

Respect

 

[lewislewis]

The SSP should enter into a coalition with the SNP to win independence, then adjust their party accordingly. The SSP supports independence remember!

 

[Fisher_Gate]

The SSP should enter into a coalition with the SNP to win independence, then adjust their party accordingly. The SSP supports independence remember!

I don't agree. I can still remember the SNP being dubbed the 'Tartan Tories'. They are a thoroughly bourgeois pro-capitalist party - it is essential the SSP retains a socialist character and keeps its distance from them.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

The ISG Political Committee have issued a statement. Don't ask me anything about it - I'm not a member of the ISG and know nothing about their internal debates, and I don't live in Scotland. The ISG leadership appear to be supporting the McCombes group appeal for a United Left, while criticising some of their members who have put their name to an open letter critical of this.

http://www.socialistresistance.net/sspcrisis.htm

Looks fairly simple to me: The tiny number of ISG members on the ground support the pro-Sheridan wing. This is the all Britain organisation giving them a slap on the wrist. The ISG and the USFI internationally seem to favour the anti-Sheridanites, the SSP-UL of course consisting in the main of former supporters of the ISM platform.

 

[tollbar]

case opens.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/5143460.stm

news International opening statement.

 

[tollbar]

This morning:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/5150246.stm

 

[tollbar]

This morning:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/5150246.stm

Thursday morning.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/5154220.stm

 

[Taxamo Welf]

http://www.workersliberty.org/node/6448

dan wtf are you doing? Why are you posting links to the AWL? Discussion about SSP, fine, but what was that about?

 

[darren redparty]

Perhaps you can tell us what evidence there is of the AWL being in the Labour Party? They certainly arent in Hackney. One of them even stood in the May election against Labour.

BarryB

http://www.workersliberty.org/node/6182
Motion passed at AWL conference 29-30 April 2006.

This AGM calls on comrades to look at the possibilities of becoming delegates to this years Labour Party Conference, either through affiliated Unions or local Constituency Labour Parties.

 

[Bear]

I think the SSP will split very, very soon. As far as I understand it, Tommy and about 6 other exec members are saying in court that Tommy never admitted to having an affair and that those MSP's and other exec members who say he admitted it are liars and and part of a cabal out to get him. I just don't see how the party can continue as one with one half leaking secret documents about Tommy to the press and testifying against him and the other half (Tommy's half) accusing the other half as being part of a cabal out to get Tommy for not supporting 50:50 gender balance.

The SSP is fucked.

One long slow car crash the far left isn't it? It's a lesson they never seem to learn.

 

[Bear]

Thursday morning.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/5154220.stm

It was on the front page of almost every paper in Scotland too.

 

[Sue]

Really don't see how TS ever thought this was a good idea. Even if he wins his libel case, people are going to remember all the 'three in a bed call girl swinger shocker' headlines that are being nicely reheated at the moment.

 

[tollbar]

Really don't see how TS ever thought this was a good idea. Even if he wins his libel case, people are going to remember all the 'three in a bed call girl swinger shocker' headlines that are being nicely reheated at the moment.

Exactly. It will be the 'no smoke without fire' scenario.

Sheridan's mistake is to take advice and support off the likes of the SWP.

Now we have Sheridans sidekick, Hugh 'wayne' Kerr, on one of the internal SSP lists accusing SSP members who give evidence in the case of being 'scabs' and calling for them to be dealt with by traditional trade union methods.

 

[Bear]

Really don't see how TS ever thought this was a good idea. Even if he wins his libel case, people are going to remember all the 'three in a bed call girl swinger shocker' headlines that are being nicely reheated at the moment.

Libel cases are usually very easy to win, the person being done for libel has to prove that what they said was true. So I guess if just one of the stories Tommy sued for was untrue (that is, couldn't be proven to be true) he could have won it. At least that's the way I understand it.

But it looks like he won't win now. Apparently, most of the exec are going to say in court that he admitted to them that he had an affair. I believe they also secretly recorded the confession in the minute and gave the minute to a newspaper etc...

Personally, I think Tommy Sheridan could have won the case if the exec all stood by him and told the same story, but they didn't. That is going to spit the party I should think.

EDITED TO ADD -

Today's headline on the Scottish Edition of The Sun was: "TOMMY THE REDS THREE IN A BED"

 

[Sue]

It doesn't really matter if he wins or not. I can understand he'd want to clear his name (if the allegations are untrue), but whereas most folk before probably dismissed it as a News of the Screws stitch up of 'our Tommy', it's now by the very fact of being in court/reported in the Herald etc gained a certain amount of credibility. After all, if he proves that he didn't have a three-in-the-bed romp but doesn't disprove that he had sex with a prostitute, for example, it hardly ends up with him having restored his reputation, does it?

Not up enough on the ins and outs of the SSP to comment on who's saying what to who, but by pursuing this in the first place, looks like he's completely screwed the party.

Also interesting to note that this has had virtually no press coverage down here -- small article on p10 or something of yesterday's Guardian (haven't seen today's yet), nothing on the BBC news -- presumably because most people down here have no idea who he is. Obviously that's all a bit different up there...

 

[tollbar]

It doesn't really matter if he wins or not. I can understand he'd want to clear his name (if the allegations are untrue), but whereas most folk before probably dismissed it as a News of the Screws stitch up of 'our Tommy', it's now by the very fact of being in court/reported in the Herald etc gained a certain amount of credibility. After all, if he proves that he didn't have a three-in-the-bed romp but doesn't disprove that he had sex with a prostitute, for example, it hardly ends up with him having restored his reputation, does it?

Not up enough on the ins and outs of the SSP to comment on who's saying what to who, but by pursuing this in the first place, looks like he's completely screwed the party.

Also interesting to note that this has had virtually no press coverage down here -- small article on p10 or something of yesterday's Guardian (haven't seen today's yet), nothing on the BBC news -- presumably because most people down here have no idea who he is. Obviously that's all a bit different up there...

its an interesting example of the divergence between English and Scottish politics. I think most people in Scotland, whether or not they agree with his politics, would agree that Sheridan is probably the most instantly recognisable politician operating on this side of the border.

 

[Sue]

I think most people in Scotland, whether or not they agree with his politics, would agree that Sheridan is probably the most instantly recognisable politician operating on this side of the border.

What, more recognisable than Jack McConnell...?

 

[tollbar]

What, more recognisable than Jack McConnell...?

hes got greater pulling power then Jack McConnell.

(Ahem, er greater crowd pulling power, of course)

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Libel cases are usually very easy to win, the person being done for libel has to prove that what they said was true. So I guess if just one of the stories Tommy sued for was untrue (that is, couldn't be proven to be true) he could have won it. At least that's the way I understand it.

You are wrong on the law of libel. Truth is a dangerous defence as it is hard to prove and if you cannot the damages are increased if you unsuccessfully use it:

Justification (truth)
It is a complete defence to an action for defamation to prove that the defamatory imputation is substantially true. Justification has to be used with great care.

When relying on the defence of justification the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that the allegations made are true. The defendant must prove it on the balance of probabilities, that is, the allegation is more likely than not to be true. It can often be difficult to obtain sufficient admissible evidence to persuade a jury that the statement is true.

An unsuccessful defence of justification is likely to increase the level of any damages awarded.

A defendant is not required to prove that every allegation is true. Section 5 of the Defamation Act 1952 provides that where the words complained of contain two or more distinct allegations a defence of justification can still succeed if the words not proved to be true do not materially injure the claimant's reputation.
http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-r...defamation---libel-and-slander/defences.shtml

 

[JimPage]

Not up enough on the ins and outs of the SSP to comment on who's saying what to who, but by pursuing this in the first place, looks like he's completely screwed the party.
qUOTE]

The SSP will survive this. You just have to look at the constant front page coverage of this in the red-tops up here to see that the SSP has got the state rattled. I think SSP members will look at the alternative on offer to unity- the SWP/Respect - and unite again.

What is clear is that there is nothing ideological in these arguements that warrants mentioning.

The role of the state in all of this this cannot be underestimated- dont ask me who because i dont know- but in ten years time if a few of the protaganists here arent outed as Spooks it would be hiighly surprising .

Oh- and the BNP have just announced they are fighting the council elections in Glasgow in 2007- which may focus a few minds

 

[JHE]

You just have to look at the constant front page coverage of this in the red-tops up here to see that the SSP has got the state rattled.

If that's how you tell who worries our rulers, Beckham, Rooney & assorted overpaid celebs must be scaring the shit out of 'em.

 

[Fedayn]

Libel cases are usually very easy to win, the person being done for libel has to prove that what they said was true.

Small point of fact but it's not a libel case but defamation. There is a difference.

 

[Fedayn]

http://www.workersliberty.org/node/6448

Speaking as an SSP member i'm a tad confused as to why an article entitled 'Defend the SSP! Oppose a split!' seems to be spending most of it's time venting spleen at Galloway.

 

[nwnm]

because its published by the AWL, and they are Galloway obsessives....

 

[nwnm]

the position of the Socialist Workers Platform is available in this bulletin -

http://www.swp.org.uk/resources/istbulletin8.pdf

 

[John Grean]

""Speaking as an SSP member i'm a tad confused as to why an article entitled 'Defend the SSP! Oppose a split!' seems to be spending most of it's time venting spleen at Galloway.""

I think the SSP should split and run a cleaning operation on the radical feminist freaks who have infiltrated it's ranks...not to mention the shit-thick pigs and spooks.

Anyone with half a brain could see it coming.

 

[Sue]

I think the SSP should split and run a cleaning operation on the radical feminist freaks who have infiltrated it's ranks...not to mention the shit-thick pigs and spooks.

JohnGrean, care to elaborate?

 

[tangentlama]

Barry, last time I cared to look they were entryists--if you're telling me they've crawled out of the coffin, I'm glad to be corrected (this one time anyway )

well said!

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Small point of fact but it's not a libel case but defamation. There is a difference.

Not really - one is a sub-category of the other. Defamation is lowering someone's reputation. It is divided into two sorts - in permanent form, eg a book, newspaper, film, etc it is called Libel; in temporary form it is called Slander, eg typically spoken at a gathering but not recorded. Slander is harder to prove and and damage from it is more likely to be temporary too, so courts are not inclined to treat it as a very serious issue. Libel can be repeated many times to very large audiences. Most defamation cases involve a libel rather than a slander so the terms are very much intertwined.