IWCA win five figure settlement

[newbie]

Party A has alleged links to 'racists'.
Party B has alleged links to 'arms dealers'.
Party C has alleged links to 'extremists'.

which of these should we lift the lid on and which support the libel lawyers? In which case are the interests of the people advanced by openness and in which by allowing the political party to determine the limits to debate?

 

[butchersapron]

"interests of the people" lol! You really are this naive.

 

[newbie]

In whose interests exactly is it that a political party refuses to confront its demons in public? Ends justify means?

pick holes in my poor wording all you like, I can't believe you reckon a little lucre justifies a party not being open with its constituents.

 

[butchersapron]

I can't believe that a tactical victory is being elavated into the defeat of an ahistorical principle.

 

[newbie]

tactical victory... you appear to be looking at this from the POV of the party, not the people who live in the area. How is it beneficial to them?



anyway, this will come back to haunt them every time they stand.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

How so?

 

[newbie]

This is British leftwing sectariana at its best, mixed with the dirty business of electoral success. Just a gut feeling: viral spread, collective memory, trainspotters, explicit whispering campaign, someone with an axe to grind who'll want to take it all the way to court. You really think this'll go away because of Carter Ruck?

 

[butchersapron]

Has sir been on the pipe tonight?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

This is British leftwing sectariana at its best, mixed with the dirty business of electoral success. Just a gut feeling: viral spread, collective memory, trainspotters, explicit whispering campaign, someone with an axe to grind who'll want to take it all the way to court. You really think this'll go away because of Carter Ruck?

Well frankly I imagine most of the good people of Blackbird Leys are unlikely to give a stuff either way, but those that do take notice of such things are likely to gain the impression that the IWCA organisation was unreasonably maligned by Cllr Baker. Which impression is unlikely to rebound to the disadvantage of said organisation.

 

[newbie]

Well frankly I imagine most of the good people of Blackbird Leys are unlikely to give a stuff either way, but those that do take notice of such things are likely to gain the impression that the IWCA organisation was unreasonably maligned by Cllr Baker. Which impression is unlikely to rebound to the disadvantage of said organisation.

The OP mentions 'links with extremist organisations', I don't know what, nor do i know if I can guess. Are you really suggesting such allegations wouldn't have an impact in an election, if they'd been aired and argued about? Are the links of political parties not to be investigated and publicised, for better or worse? Whichever party it is.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

I'm suggesting that if somebody makes a serious allegation against somebody then the accused party is perfectly entitled to seek redress for the allegation. You can't ask people to just sit and take it, why in god's name should they have to? I wouldnt.

 

[newbie]

Because they're standing for public office and guilt by association is a political charge to which they should respond.


er, or ignore.

 

[butchersapron]

They did. What makes you think that they didn't combat the slurs 'on the ground' as well?

 

[newbie]

No doubt they did, but in the context of a gag, the debate is neither open nor free. Could it be the subject of a radio phone-in, for instance, with a libel writ flying around.

There's an assumption here that the allegations are blanket untrue. They have not been tested, that assumption is unfounded. All we know is that the LP chose not to fight.

There's another assumption that the interests of this party somehow entitle it to lesser scrutiny than other parties.

 

[Sean]

No doubt they did, but in the context of a gag, the debate is neither open nor free. Could it be the subject of a radio phone-in, for instance, with a libel writ flying around.

There's an assumption here that the allegations are blanket untrue. They have not been tested, that assumption is unfounded. All we know is that the LP chose not to fight.

There's another assumption that the interests of this party somehow entitle it to lesser scrutiny than other parties.

I don't think you know half of the shit that was flying around Blackbird Leys when it looked like the IWCA began to pose a significant threat to Labour there. Labour have pulled out the stops to smear local activists, in print and on the door step (with far worse shit than appeared in leaflets).

I think Oxford IWCA activists will probably have something to say about this fairly soon though.

 

[newbie]

No I dont. In general, is this guilt by association stuff or allegations of a personal nature?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

No doubt they did, but in the context of a gag, the debate is neither open nor free. Could it be the subject of a radio phone-in, for instance, with a libel writ flying around.

There's an assumption here that the allegations are blanket untrue. They have not been tested, that assumption is unfounded. All we know is that the LP chose not to fight.

There's another assumption that the interests of this party somehow entitle it to lesser scrutiny than other parties.

Newbie you are so wide of the mark on this. The allegation was made publicly (free speech was exercised, which in the abstract seems to be what is exercising you); the leaflet was distributed. The lie was argued against on the ground.

Subsequently the threat of a libel action was used to make the liar think twice about lying again. Or do you really believe that political parties should, as part of their electioneering, be free to repeat endlessly the same false allegations, in an all too obvious attempt to divert attention from the rather more immediate concerns of their would be voters? They had a bite at that particular cherry, and, because they knew that they weren't onto a winner when it came to substantiating the allegations, they have been warned off doing it again.

No doubt someone in Oxford Labour Party is thinking up new ways of deflecting potential IWCA supporters from scrutinising their party's record in office. Only this time they will have to consider how to do it without lying; which I would have thought would be generally seen as a good thing. However, if you prefer to give your politicians carte blanche when it comes to dissembling, then that is your prerogative.

Louis Mac

 

[laptop]

Anyway, I hear that newbie's favourite party leader is an associate of Gary Glitter's.

Would newbie support me publicising the details?

 

[newbie]

Louis, no disrespect but you're calling a named individual councillor a what?

 

[newbie]

Laptop yes, it might have a basis in truth and I want to know before placing my allegiance. Whose interests are served by rushing to the libel courts?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Louis, no disrespect but you're calling a named individual councillor a what?

I'm saying, on a membership, moderated internet discussion board (as opposed to a publicly distributed election leaflet), that if the councillor thought he could have defended the allegation as truthful, then he would have done so. Indeed given past history, he would have been backed to the hilt by his party to do so. That he didn't choose to take it court, says to me that he thought he'd be shown to have been untruthful; he was frightened of being caught out. What you seem to be arguing is that this electioneering by unsubstantiated allegation is not simply legitimate political behaviour, but that it should be allowed to be repeated presumably ad nauseum.

Louis Mac

 

[newbie]

No doubt someone in Oxford Labour Party is thinking up new ways of deflecting potential IWCA supporters from scrutinising their party's record in office. Only this time they will have to consider how to do it without lying; which I would have thought would be generally seen as a good thing. However, if you prefer to give your politicians carte blanche when it comes to dissembling, then that is your prerogative.

Louis Mac

No of course not. All politicians deserve scrutiny, including your lot, but especially those in power.

Part of that scrutiny involves what I mentioned earlier: separating party interest from what is truly in the interests of its constituents. Without those allegations being open for discussion on the phone-ins they become not legitimate political argument, but 'slurs' and 'smears'.

Who is prepared to write down these allegations? No-one, I imagine, because there are libel lawyers primed and ready. Just what they wanted, suppressed debate.

 

[butchersapron]

Do you really think the IWCA have lawyers walking around ready to sue people. Anyone? Not just people who publish and distribute a leaflet anfd making those same allegations as a political and polemical point? Just anyone? Get a grip mate.

 

[newbie]

What you seem to be arguing is that this electioneering by unsubstantiated allegation is not simply legitimate political behaviour, but that it should be allowed to be repeated presumably ad nauseum.

Louis Mac

'links with extremist organisations' sounds like a political attack to me. Pointing out the links of political parties is entirely legitimate, why not?

 

[butchersapron]

'links with extremist organisations' sounds like a political attack to me. Pointing out the links of political parties is entirely legitimate, why not?

They did. They got the idea around as they intended, but they lost on the other ground. Your refusal to look at the material context of this is baffling (not through the perspective of ahistorial principles) given your total insistence on it on almost every other issue.

 

[newbie]

Do you really think the IWCA have lawyers walking around ready to sue people. Anyone? Not just people who publish and distribute a leaflet anfd making those same allegations as a political and polemical point? Just anyone? Get a grip mate.

Louis has described them as 'lies'. Either they're open to debate or they're not. For them to be open to debate here but not in Oxford is a bit of an insult to the people of Oxford. .

 

[newbie]

They did. They got the idea around as they intended, but they lost on the other ground. Your refusal to look at the material context of this is baffling (not through the perspective of ahistorial principles) given your total insistence on it on almost every other issue.

lost, sorry, I've no idea what that means.

 

[butchersapron]

Louis has described them as 'lies'. Either they're open to debate or they're not. For them to be open to debate here but not in Oxford is a bit of an insult to the people of Oxford. .

No, they're open to discussion in Oxford or on here. If they're put in the form of a shit stirring false leaflet that was unsable to stand up then i wouldn't want to put my name to it. You're getting the two confused.

 

[butchersapron]

lost, sorry, I've no idea what that means.

You really don't do you?

You normally ask for the real material determinants behind something taking place, not the ideological ones, i.e you have a perspective that recognises the historical construction of interests and the possiblilites of conflict this opens up with the official narrative - and, centrally, the contested nature of life/politics...Until you come to this case and some a-historical principle that is not to be sullied by reality is wheeled out.

 

[newbie]

You really don't do you?

not with the degree of precision with which you use language, no.

You normally ask for the real material determinants behind something taking place, not the ideological ones, i.e you have a perspective that recognises the historical construction of interests and the possiblilites of conflict this opens up with the official narrative - and, centrally, the contested nature of life/politics...Until you come to this case and some a-historical principle that is not to be sullied by reality is wheeled out.

Oh right, you mean the IWCA should be cut some slack because they're the good guys. The trouble is, incidents like this raise doubts that's the case. Whatever their position in the grander scheme of things, politicians who try to cover stuff up are to be trusted even less than the rest.