The ultimate aim of the SSP is to govern an independent socialist Scotland. How can the people of Scotland continue to place their trust in the SSP MSPs who refuse to accept the ruling of a Scottish court, and ignore the wishes of the majority of their own party members? With the aforesaid in mind, I would urge all the MSPs who wear the proverbial cap to resign.
This group, called the majority is at present by far the largest and as the majority (bolshyevik in Russian) it has a duty to lead. But real leadership is not domination of all alternatives, it inspires, brings together and strengthens the whole. I believe we must take up responsibility of leading the wounded SSP with immediate effect.
Here are some fundamental facts:
1) The party seems to have split into two factions, but most of the membership has not yet, and may never, associate themselves with either one of them.
2) Those who control the means of communication control the party.
3) The Scottish Parliament elections are a matter of months away.
4) The electorate will dissert any party that is *perceived* to be concentrating on internal conflict.
From 3 and 4, I deduce that the greatest danger for the SSP, and all it stands for, is now that we spend all our time on internal conflict (fighting over the fiddle whilst the world burns).
I have given myself a dose of ‘perspective’ by deliberately reading some first hand accounts of crushing poverty, terrible injustice and appalling war crimes - all real life, all current. Stopping this is why we joined this party is it not.
We need to find the shortest path to get beck to that job and the one that brings the maximum number of people with us. This is imperative for the party given 3 and 4 above and is our duty to the cause of Socialism.
The first essential step must be to regain control over the means of communication within the party, since nothing can be achieved without it, other than setting up a rival SSP based on SSPM adherents.
This perhaps requires a resolution at the NC and practical steps to secure control in reality. If possible we must obtain an up-to-date membership list. We must resolve not to abuse the party’s communication systems as the UL have done.
Note that I have been told that UL sympathisers have now changed the locks on the Headquarters building - they may also have changed computer passwords.
We need to reach out to those who are not committed to either faction - we will certainly fail to do that if we behave as one faction fighting another. Remember too that there are those in the UL who share our primary aims of restoring the party - they could be persuaded by the right approach.
We need to have the NC and there make it clear that the Conference and NC run the party, not the Executive who can be dismissed by NC if necessary (according to the constitution). But this must not be a counter-coup. Let the UL scream and behave like children on their own behalf, we will move forwards for the good of the whole party, with strength and level-headed dignity. This way we can begin to address point 1 above.
To do this, we need to be conciliatory without being weak. That means saying we are ready to put the enmities behind us and work for Socialism (and we have to mean it). We must make it clear that what we demand is an end to internal squabbling and a restarting of the fight against poverty and injustice. We prove this only by doing it, by turning our backs on internal attack and recriminations and getting right on with the real job in hand. Therefore we should ask for the NC to consider the party’s agenda for election 97 and have some plans ready for it. Leave the UL to fight the pointless fight - we will proceed with the good fight.
If this action is taken and seen to be the way of the SSPM, then others will follow.
Let us also acknowledge that for many different reasons, there are good people who feel let down and angry on both sides of the SSPM / UL conflict. We are in a position of strength from which we can show understanding for those on the other side who feel so bad at present. That is a human response of dignity and courage. It is also a politically canny one. So I say, we should not ‘demand’ an NC or apologies etc. from the UL. Instead we should make reasoned arguments that are demonstrably in the interest of wider Socialism and show we care about all members of the party. At the same time we should not be pushed around or manipulated by those we disagree with. It is leaders who have the right and strength to offer olive branches for the greater good. Socialism draws on the human spirit of empathy, care and a sense of justice. Let us all keep that at the front of our minds.
The mission of the SSPM should be to reunite the party by focussing hearts and minds on the real enemy - povery, injustice and tyranny.
I have a couple of suggestions. Do we all agree that members should be free to discuss strategy and tactics frankly, but comradely, in the expectation that what we say will be treated with confidentiality? I think we need to agree not to leak the contents of comrades' thinking on this blog to non-members of the SSP-Majority. We have to recognise ourselves as a beseiged majority, one whose leaders are threatened with imprisonment, thanks to 'evidence' supplied to Rupert Murdoch, and to the Lothians and Borders' Police.
Four MSPs, eleven scabs, the overwhelming majority of the executive, and a fan club of up to 170, with hangers-on in the RCN, CPGB, WU and AWL are out to destroy us. Comrades need to stop and think very carefully what they say on this blog. Just in case someone deliberately leaks something potentially damaging to any one of us. At times it look like the 170 ULN scabs don't have two brain cells to rub together between the lot of them. However, I would not put it past them to be doing a bit of entryist work, just in order to have access to our internal discussions.
Secondly, comrades should feel free to think outside the box, and to give their impressions of what they are thinking at the time, without worrying about these thoughts appearing on a forum where the scabs are present. We should be able to cross-post our *own* contributions but, unless given specific permission, we should err on the side of caution and not cross-post other comrades ideas.
Thirdly, in an exchange off-list a comrade has advised against our using the term 'scab' to describe our opponents, suggesting 'grass' as an alternative.
I am strongly opposed to the term 'grass' in the present context. It is to concede that the key evidence the scabs gave under oath was in fact accurate, and should have been believed by the jury. This would be to play into the hands of the Rupert Murdoch, the Lothians and Borders' Police. And into the hands of the scabs, who did in fact commit perjury. It is imperative for the SSP-Majority to compile as strong a case as possible to discredit the scabs. Just in case the state does prosecute Tommy et al for perjury.
As for the term scab, I don't see the problem. Scabs vote against collective action, then cross picket lines when they lose the vote. The eleven scabs voted at the national council against giving Tommy 100% support, then ignored our picket. Liberals, Murdcoh, Special Branch and judges all across the land will insist that the votes of our emergency national council do not trump bourgeois law. But we must insist that, given a choise between contempt of court and contempt of our party's national council, the scabs made the wrong choise. Everything now comes down to whether the scabs can persuade a subsequent jury that they are more credible than Tommy's witnesses. Unless Barbara Scott (or maybe the invisible witness, Frances Curran) can produce a tape recording of the alleged executive meeting, we should be alright. Which brings me to one last point.
If Barbara Scott was negligent in failing to make a secret tape recording of the 9 November 2004 meeting, this is not a mistake she (or Green, or McCombes etc) will ever make again. Until we can see the back of the scabs (and all the members of their 170 fans who refuse to grow up, and become socialists once again), we should assume that evidence is being secretly collected for Murdoch and the Lothians and Borders Police. Until the inevitable split (and it is inevitable), it is better to be safe than sorry.
I've just come back from a whole day out on the Stop the War march in Edinburgh. Nearly 10,000 people marching, chanting, uniting to demand that Blair goes, that we get a ceasefire now and an end to Israeli terror. Absolutely fantastic.
And what a difference to last Saturday when I was attacked at the Lothian's members meeting by the "ice-cool" witness for the NOTW and her partner.
This is the way forward. We have to get as many of the SSP on these marches, invovled in activity of one sort or another and down to Manchester on the 23rd.
There has to be an internal debate but unless we link it to action in the real world, it can seem like a battle between them and us.
This way we show in practice what the difference is between our positions.
Comrades may be interested to read today's Scotland on Sunday which reports that 6 new scabs have crawled out of the woodwork. (They only name Charlie McCarthy, however). More interestingly they have a comment board following the report. Comrades may be interested in posting a comment! Go to: http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1178502006
Truman (it is Truman, isn't it?), everyone knows that the common law husband of a former editor of McCombes' favourite newspaper is not a member of our party. And the SSPMajority certainly would not recruit this shit if Allan Green let him through the gates of our party. It is clear from both of your contributions that you are one of McCombes' scabs, and I am confident that I know which scab it is. The SSPMajority has a very serious security breach on our hands. Now, whoever you are, I woudl draw your attention to the fact that we have all been reminded within the last few days (by Scotland Yard's charging of the Royal editor of your favourite newspaper) that hacking is a criminal offence. Given that McCombes, and his merry band of perjurers (and they are perjurers) pretend that every truth must be placed into the public domain, regardless of what it is about (the J Edgar Hoover attitude towards truth, rather than the Frederick Engels attitude), perhaps you would like to crawl out from under your appropriately chosen penname. Of course, if you are Truman, that is not your style. Truman stabs colleagues in the back using unattributed press briefings (exactly like Alister Campbell and Bernard Inghan). If you were to identify yourself, we could take the evidence to the Lothians and Borders police. They could place under arrest. BTW, Truman (if it is indeed Truman), I immediately sent your threatening email to Douglas Fraser of the Herald, and have spoken over the phone about your thuggish behavior in the past to one of the paper's senior journalists. I have also consulted a lawyer and what you wrote does constitute a criminal offense. Should I, as a champion of 'the truth' take the evidence of this crime to the Lothians and Borders Police so they can prosecute the sender of that email? In any appeal by the NOTW and/or perjury trial against Tommy and his witnesses, I will certainly make it available to Tommy's legal team to demonstrate the depth to which McCombes' United Scabs will go to intimidate their critics in our party.
I have just come back from Vale of Leven, my mother has been ill and in hospital. I have come back to a lot of anger and words being said about former comrades that make me feel uncomfortable and very sad indeed. I should make it quite clear that I have supported Tommy in this case and was appalled by the behaviour of certain comrades, the fact that they gave evidence in support of the NOTW really cut me to the core, but that does not mean that we start to use the sort of language found in the gutter press, it was Alan McCombes who told me "once you are reduced to name-calling then you have lost the political argument". We should not go down that path, we need to reclaim our party from those who have mishandled it, those who have forgotten why we came about in the first place. There are people out in communities all over Scotland who need our help and support, they need us to get back doing what we do best, campaigning against the existence of poverty, campaigning against the injustice of the council tax, campaigning against the insanity of all war, these are the things that the people of Scotland voted us to do.
The longer we take tearing ourselves to pieces then the harder it will be to become relevant again to all of these people. I left this great party because I did not feel comfortable in it any longer, I realise now I made a mistake and should have went home and taken some time out, particularly after the events that have just culminated in a victory for Tommy and the very able team that supported him. I have now rejoined the party that I love and will campaign for. I take no pleasure in seeing former comrades behaving like they do and hope that they do the decent thing and resign their posts within the party and that we are big enough and bold enough to hold an olive branch out to all these people who still beleive in socialism. We are winning the political battle, it is not necessary for us to start witch hunts and other personal attacks. The great socialist party of Keir Hardie has been reduced to a war criminal and a croquet player, the people of Scotland need a socialist party to turn to, we must not let them down. We should take back our party and get on with the job of building socialism.
May I take this opportunity to congratulate John Aberdein for all he did during the case. If we beleived in the honours system he would surely be Sir John.
I've been in extended communication with Carolyn Leckie. I closed it down telling her she persistently evades my direct questions
That amongst other problems neither she, Andrew Gray nor the entire Health Group reflect fundamental Socialist principles
We all have our own causes and I must serve notice: I will bitterly leave the SSP Majority if the re-formed organisation does not return to pre-2004 Policy, and vigorously oppose the international pharmaceutical industry
IN PARTICULAR by publicly attacking the current Mental Health system. My website fully explains why (http://webs.workwithus.org/ondeafears/) but here are fundamentals:
a) Scottish M.H. Law is in clear breach of Articles 3, 5, 7, 8 and 14 of the U.N. Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which is confirmed by the W.H.O.
This directly affects 380,000 Scots disproportionately including the poor, women, cultural, racial and other minority groups
b) The nation's M.H. is demonstrably failing
c) In Scotland alone this failure to deliver national M.H. costs some four billion pounds each and every year - Think what could be done with such money
d) There is ABSOLUTELY no science behind ANY mental illness diagnosis or treatment - I challenge the self-styled SSP United Left and current Health Group to deny this. Do it direct with me, then we'll post a summary - If you hear no more from me you may be sure they can't or haven't tried
e) There is a low cost, clearly Socialist, well proven alternative approach to delivery known as The Social Model of Mental Health. In 2003 I offered the Health Group a realistic plan for converting the current system to that approach showing high economic gains from the first year
f) Worldwide 17 million children are now on mind-altering drugs well proven to have dangerous side effects including death and lifetime disabilities
g) Currently there is no official research whatsoever into well known alternatives to current drug-based treatments
h) After arms the international pharmaceutical industry is the world most profitable business
That the SSP openly encourages and supports it is a shame on us all
The Abuse of Minutes- A reply to Alan McCombes
by John Dennis (Dumfries SSP)
Alan McCombes set out his case eloquently in the all members Bulletin.
Unfortunately his depiction of the EC members as paragons of truth and honesty does not ring true.
His whole case is founded on the “minutes” of 9th November 2004.
FAILURE
In connection with those “minutes” he failed to mention 3 key facts that all SSP members need to know.
1. In Keith Baldassara’s testimony to the court he told of a meeting of 8 EC members in Alan McCombes flat 2 or 3 days before that EC meeting. That undisclosed meeting discussed in advance what to do at the EC meeting. Present at the meeting were Alan McCombes, Keith Baldassara, Allan Green, Carolyn Leckie, Rosie Kane, Ritchie Venton, Catriona Grant and Frances Curran.
Thus 8 of the 20 attending on 9th November had a previously worked out strategy (unbeknown to the rest).
2. The emergency NC meeting , called in December 04 to discuss the resignation , was persuaded to accept the EC “minute” without having sight of it. It was urged that we agree to this to protect Tommy’s privacy. There was no mention of the nature of the “minute”. NC members took it on trust that this would be a normal EC minute (i.e. it would contain only a list of those present; the matters that were discussed and a list of those who spoke in each discussion then the agreed outcome with recorded votes.) A minute does not normally contain details of the discussion. Nor would you expect a minute to be selective and record the comments of only 2 individuals. Had we known the detail, I for one would have challenged the “minute” as highly inappropriate.
3. There is no evidence that it is a “minute” at all. It has never attained that status.There is no evidence that it was ever proposed , seconded , amended or ratified. Ratification didn’t happen at the next EC meeting on 24th November or any other time . An unratified “minute” remains a private concoction with no status at all either in the party or in the courts.
CONFIDENTIALITY
In my 16 years as a lay official in the EIS, I have frequently attended meetings over grievances where members’ personal difficulties have had to be discussed. DETAILS OF SUCH PERSONAL DIFFICULTIES WOULD NEVER BE MINUTED IN THE EIS OR ANY OTHER TRADE UNION. Only outcomes are minuted.
FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG
The approach of Alan McCombes, Keith Baldassara and co. to Tommy’s fight with the NotW was fundamentally flawed.
They were correct to let Tommy know about their concerns informally.
I would argue (though admittedly hindsight is a wonderful thing) that they overreacted in calling an emergency EC to discuss the matter with the intention of forcing their view of the matter on Tommy or making him resign.
They were absolutely wrong to minute the detail of the discussion. The “minute” was then constructed to include a summary of the arguments put by Tommy and Alan McCombes around a private and personal matter. The rest of the “minute” then followed the normal EC minutes pattern.
There never was a need to retain such a detailed record of the meeting. The “historical record” argument is not acceptable as an excuse for retaining a detailed “minute”. For Allan Green to refuse to destroy the “minute” once he knew Tommy Sheridan was pursuing his case against the NotW was inexcusable.
By then it had become a question of “Which side are you on ?”- Tommy’s or NotW?
We knew by then that there was a mole leaking internal SSP information against Tommy to Paul Hutcheon of the Sunday Herald. Someone then leaked a (different)concocted minute to the NotW. Then in May the mole struck again. Paul Hutcheon revealed on the morning of the NC meeting that the mole had lodged an affidavit with him giving their account of the November 9th meeting. (That mole is still active, working not just against Tommy Sheridan but against the SSP as a whole. Most recently Paul Hutcheon wrote an article based on a paper on SSP finances that had gone only to the EC)
Despite knowing what the mole had done and anxious to appear the “good guys” the EC wasted about £25.000 of the Party’s money on a foredoomed legal challenge and Alan McCombes even went to jail to protect the privacy of a “minute” that should never have existed.
The May NC rescued the party from potential bankruptcy by abandoning the badly thought through defiance strategy. We were left with a disastrous mess. We saw in court 11 members some of whom felt trapped by the “minute” into testifying against Tommy. Others, disgusted by the machinations of McCombes, Green, Leckie & co. over the “minute”, disputed its accuracy. Had the “minute” not existed or been destroyed, we wouldn’t be in this sorry mess. Alan McCombes & co. need to recognize that without their disastrous “minute” Tommy would have wiped the floor with the NotW( if the case had even got to court).
It is time to end the public mud slinging. The cause of Socialism has been seriously set back by this lamentable episode.
Everyone concerned needs to draw a line under this and move on to confront the real issues.
The ultimate aim of the SSP is to govern an independent socialist Scotland. How can the people of Scotland continue to place their trust in the SSP MSPs who refuse to accept the ruling of a Scottish court, and ignore the wishes of the majority of their own party members? With the aforesaid in mind, I would urge all the MSPs who wear the proverbial cap to resign.
Posted by: Ken Glass | Thursday, August 10, 2006 at 07:20 PM
This group, called the majority is at present by far the largest and as the majority (bolshyevik in Russian) it has a duty to lead. But real leadership is not domination of all alternatives, it inspires, brings together and strengthens the whole. I believe we must take up responsibility of leading the wounded SSP with immediate effect.
Here are some fundamental facts:
1) The party seems to have split into two factions, but most of the membership has not yet, and may never, associate themselves with either one of them.
2) Those who control the means of communication control the party.
3) The Scottish Parliament elections are a matter of months away.
4) The electorate will dissert any party that is *perceived* to be concentrating on internal conflict.
From 3 and 4, I deduce that the greatest danger for the SSP, and all it stands for, is now that we spend all our time on internal conflict (fighting over the fiddle whilst the world burns).
I have given myself a dose of ‘perspective’ by deliberately reading some first hand accounts of crushing poverty, terrible injustice and appalling war crimes - all real life, all current. Stopping this is why we joined this party is it not.
We need to find the shortest path to get beck to that job and the one that brings the maximum number of people with us. This is imperative for the party given 3 and 4 above and is our duty to the cause of Socialism.
The first essential step must be to regain control over the means of communication within the party, since nothing can be achieved without it, other than setting up a rival SSP based on SSPM adherents.
This perhaps requires a resolution at the NC and practical steps to secure control in reality. If possible we must obtain an up-to-date membership list. We must resolve not to abuse the party’s communication systems as the UL have done.
Note that I have been told that UL sympathisers have now changed the locks on the Headquarters building - they may also have changed computer passwords.
We need to reach out to those who are not committed to either faction - we will certainly fail to do that if we behave as one faction fighting another. Remember too that there are those in the UL who share our primary aims of restoring the party - they could be persuaded by the right approach.
We need to have the NC and there make it clear that the Conference and NC run the party, not the Executive who can be dismissed by NC if necessary (according to the constitution). But this must not be a counter-coup. Let the UL scream and behave like children on their own behalf, we will move forwards for the good of the whole party, with strength and level-headed dignity. This way we can begin to address point 1 above.
To do this, we need to be conciliatory without being weak. That means saying we are ready to put the enmities behind us and work for Socialism (and we have to mean it). We must make it clear that what we demand is an end to internal squabbling and a restarting of the fight against poverty and injustice. We prove this only by doing it, by turning our backs on internal attack and recriminations and getting right on with the real job in hand. Therefore we should ask for the NC to consider the party’s agenda for election 97 and have some plans ready for it. Leave the UL to fight the pointless fight - we will proceed with the good fight.
If this action is taken and seen to be the way of the SSPM, then others will follow.
Let us also acknowledge that for many different reasons, there are good people who feel let down and angry on both sides of the SSPM / UL conflict. We are in a position of strength from which we can show understanding for those on the other side who feel so bad at present. That is a human response of dignity and courage. It is also a politically canny one. So I say, we should not ‘demand’ an NC or apologies etc. from the UL. Instead we should make reasoned arguments that are demonstrably in the interest of wider Socialism and show we care about all members of the party. At the same time we should not be pushed around or manipulated by those we disagree with. It is leaders who have the right and strength to offer olive branches for the greater good. Socialism draws on the human spirit of empathy, care and a sense of justice. Let us all keep that at the front of our minds.
The mission of the SSPM should be to reunite the party by focussing hearts and minds on the real enemy - povery, injustice and tyranny.
Respectfully,
Keith Farnsworth
SSP Aberdeen South Branch.
Posted by: Keith Farnsworth | Thursday, August 10, 2006 at 10:36 PM
I have a couple of suggestions. Do we all agree that members should be free to discuss strategy and tactics frankly, but comradely, in the expectation that what we say will be treated with confidentiality? I think we need to agree not to leak the contents of comrades' thinking on this blog to non-members of the SSP-Majority. We have to recognise ourselves as a beseiged majority, one whose leaders are threatened with imprisonment, thanks to 'evidence' supplied to Rupert Murdoch, and to the Lothians and Borders' Police.
Four MSPs, eleven scabs, the overwhelming majority of the executive, and a fan club of up to 170, with hangers-on in the RCN, CPGB, WU and AWL are out to destroy us. Comrades need to stop and think very carefully what they say on this blog. Just in case someone deliberately leaks something potentially damaging to any one of us. At times it look like the 170 ULN scabs don't have two brain cells to rub together between the lot of them. However, I would not put it past them to be doing a bit of entryist work, just in order to have access to our internal discussions.
Secondly, comrades should feel free to think outside the box, and to give their impressions of what they are thinking at the time, without worrying about these thoughts appearing on a forum where the scabs are present. We should be able to cross-post our *own* contributions but, unless given specific permission, we should err on the side of caution and not cross-post other comrades ideas.
Thirdly, in an exchange off-list a comrade has advised against our using the term 'scab' to describe our opponents, suggesting 'grass' as an alternative.
I am strongly opposed to the term 'grass' in the present context. It is to concede that the key evidence the scabs gave under oath was in fact accurate, and should have been believed by the jury. This would be to play into the hands of the Rupert Murdoch, the Lothians and Borders' Police. And into the hands of the scabs, who did in fact commit perjury. It is imperative for the SSP-Majority to compile as strong a case as possible to discredit the scabs. Just in case the state does prosecute Tommy et al for perjury.
As for the term scab, I don't see the problem. Scabs vote against collective action, then cross picket lines when they lose the vote. The eleven scabs voted at the national council against giving Tommy 100% support, then ignored our picket. Liberals, Murdcoh, Special Branch and judges all across the land will insist that the votes of our emergency national council do not trump bourgeois law. But we must insist that, given a choise between contempt of court and contempt of our party's national council, the scabs made the wrong choise. Everything now comes down to whether the scabs can persuade a subsequent jury that they are more credible than Tommy's witnesses. Unless Barbara Scott (or maybe the invisible witness, Frances Curran) can produce a tape recording of the alleged executive meeting, we should be alright. Which brings me to one last point.
If Barbara Scott was negligent in failing to make a secret tape recording of the 9 November 2004 meeting, this is not a mistake she (or Green, or McCombes etc) will ever make again. Until we can see the back of the scabs (and all the members of their 170 fans who refuse to grow up, and become socialists once again), we should assume that evidence is being secretly collected for Murdoch and the Lothians and Borders Police. Until the inevitable split (and it is inevitable), it is better to be safe than sorry.
In comradeship,
Tom
Posted by: Tom Delargy | Friday, August 11, 2006 at 03:36 PM
I've just come back from a whole day out on the Stop the War march in Edinburgh. Nearly 10,000 people marching, chanting, uniting to demand that Blair goes, that we get a ceasefire now and an end to Israeli terror. Absolutely fantastic.
And what a difference to last Saturday when I was attacked at the Lothian's members meeting by the "ice-cool" witness for the NOTW and her partner.
This is the way forward. We have to get as many of the SSP on these marches, invovled in activity of one sort or another and down to Manchester on the 23rd.
There has to be an internal debate but unless we link it to action in the real world, it can seem like a battle between them and us.
This way we show in practice what the difference is between our positions.
Posted by: Ian Hood | Saturday, August 12, 2006 at 08:12 PM
Comrades may be interested to read today's Scotland on Sunday which reports that 6 new scabs have crawled out of the woodwork. (They only name Charlie McCarthy, however). More interestingly they have a comment board following the report. Comrades may be interested in posting a comment! Go to: http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1178502006
Solidarity
Norma
Posted by: Norma Anderson | Sunday, August 13, 2006 at 01:02 PM
Truman (it is Truman, isn't it?), everyone knows that the common law husband of a former editor of McCombes' favourite newspaper is not a member of our party. And the SSPMajority certainly would not recruit this shit if Allan Green let him through the gates of our party. It is clear from both of your contributions that you are one of McCombes' scabs, and I am confident that I know which scab it is. The SSPMajority has a very serious security breach on our hands. Now, whoever you are, I woudl draw your attention to the fact that we have all been reminded within the last few days (by Scotland Yard's charging of the Royal editor of your favourite newspaper) that hacking is a criminal offence. Given that McCombes, and his merry band of perjurers (and they are perjurers) pretend that every truth must be placed into the public domain, regardless of what it is about (the J Edgar Hoover attitude towards truth, rather than the Frederick Engels attitude), perhaps you would like to crawl out from under your appropriately chosen penname. Of course, if you are Truman, that is not your style. Truman stabs colleagues in the back using unattributed press briefings (exactly like Alister Campbell and Bernard Inghan). If you were to identify yourself, we could take the evidence to the Lothians and Borders police. They could place under arrest. BTW, Truman (if it is indeed Truman), I immediately sent your threatening email to Douglas Fraser of the Herald, and have spoken over the phone about your thuggish behavior in the past to one of the paper's senior journalists. I have also consulted a lawyer and what you wrote does constitute a criminal offense. Should I, as a champion of 'the truth' take the evidence of this crime to the Lothians and Borders Police so they can prosecute the sender of that email? In any appeal by the NOTW and/or perjury trial against Tommy and his witnesses, I will certainly make it available to Tommy's legal team to demonstrate the depth to which McCombes' United Scabs will go to intimidate their critics in our party.
Posted by: Tom Delargy | Monday, August 14, 2006 at 05:09 AM
Comrades
I have just come back from Vale of Leven, my mother has been ill and in hospital. I have come back to a lot of anger and words being said about former comrades that make me feel uncomfortable and very sad indeed. I should make it quite clear that I have supported Tommy in this case and was appalled by the behaviour of certain comrades, the fact that they gave evidence in support of the NOTW really cut me to the core, but that does not mean that we start to use the sort of language found in the gutter press, it was Alan McCombes who told me "once you are reduced to name-calling then you have lost the political argument". We should not go down that path, we need to reclaim our party from those who have mishandled it, those who have forgotten why we came about in the first place. There are people out in communities all over Scotland who need our help and support, they need us to get back doing what we do best, campaigning against the existence of poverty, campaigning against the injustice of the council tax, campaigning against the insanity of all war, these are the things that the people of Scotland voted us to do.
The longer we take tearing ourselves to pieces then the harder it will be to become relevant again to all of these people. I left this great party because I did not feel comfortable in it any longer, I realise now I made a mistake and should have went home and taken some time out, particularly after the events that have just culminated in a victory for Tommy and the very able team that supported him. I have now rejoined the party that I love and will campaign for. I take no pleasure in seeing former comrades behaving like they do and hope that they do the decent thing and resign their posts within the party and that we are big enough and bold enough to hold an olive branch out to all these people who still beleive in socialism. We are winning the political battle, it is not necessary for us to start witch hunts and other personal attacks. The great socialist party of Keir Hardie has been reduced to a war criminal and a croquet player, the people of Scotland need a socialist party to turn to, we must not let them down. We should take back our party and get on with the job of building socialism.
May I take this opportunity to congratulate John Aberdein for all he did during the case. If we beleived in the honours system he would surely be Sir John.
Posted by: John Sangster | Tuesday, August 15, 2006 at 04:26 PM
John
glad to see you back and hope to see you on the 3rd September and if not then, sometime soon.
Jim
Posted by: Jim McFarlane | Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 07:04 PM
I've been in extended communication with Carolyn Leckie. I closed it down telling her she persistently evades my direct questions
That amongst other problems neither she, Andrew Gray nor the entire Health Group reflect fundamental Socialist principles
We all have our own causes and I must serve notice: I will bitterly leave the SSP Majority if the re-formed organisation does not return to pre-2004 Policy, and vigorously oppose the international pharmaceutical industry
IN PARTICULAR by publicly attacking the current Mental Health system. My website fully explains why (http://webs.workwithus.org/ondeafears/) but here are fundamentals:
a) Scottish M.H. Law is in clear breach of Articles 3, 5, 7, 8 and 14 of the U.N. Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which is confirmed by the W.H.O.
This directly affects 380,000 Scots disproportionately including the poor, women, cultural, racial and other minority groups
b) The nation's M.H. is demonstrably failing
c) In Scotland alone this failure to deliver national M.H. costs some four billion pounds each and every year - Think what could be done with such money
d) There is ABSOLUTELY no science behind ANY mental illness diagnosis or treatment - I challenge the self-styled SSP United Left and current Health Group to deny this. Do it direct with me, then we'll post a summary - If you hear no more from me you may be sure they can't or haven't tried
e) There is a low cost, clearly Socialist, well proven alternative approach to delivery known as The Social Model of Mental Health. In 2003 I offered the Health Group a realistic plan for converting the current system to that approach showing high economic gains from the first year
f) Worldwide 17 million children are now on mind-altering drugs well proven to have dangerous side effects including death and lifetime disabilities
g) Currently there is no official research whatsoever into well known alternatives to current drug-based treatments
h) After arms the international pharmaceutical industry is the world most profitable business
That the SSP openly encourages and supports it is a shame on us all
dixie dean (prof)
Posted by: Dixie Dean | Tuesday, August 22, 2006 at 06:52 AM
The Abuse of Minutes- A reply to Alan McCombes
by John Dennis (Dumfries SSP)
Alan McCombes set out his case eloquently in the all members Bulletin.
Unfortunately his depiction of the EC members as paragons of truth and honesty does not ring true.
His whole case is founded on the “minutes” of 9th November 2004.
FAILURE
In connection with those “minutes” he failed to mention 3 key facts that all SSP members need to know.
1. In Keith Baldassara’s testimony to the court he told of a meeting of 8 EC members in Alan McCombes flat 2 or 3 days before that EC meeting. That undisclosed meeting discussed in advance what to do at the EC meeting. Present at the meeting were Alan McCombes, Keith Baldassara, Allan Green, Carolyn Leckie, Rosie Kane, Ritchie Venton, Catriona Grant and Frances Curran.
Thus 8 of the 20 attending on 9th November had a previously worked out strategy (unbeknown to the rest).
2. The emergency NC meeting , called in December 04 to discuss the resignation , was persuaded to accept the EC “minute” without having sight of it. It was urged that we agree to this to protect Tommy’s privacy. There was no mention of the nature of the “minute”. NC members took it on trust that this would be a normal EC minute (i.e. it would contain only a list of those present; the matters that were discussed and a list of those who spoke in each discussion then the agreed outcome with recorded votes.) A minute does not normally contain details of the discussion. Nor would you expect a minute to be selective and record the comments of only 2 individuals. Had we known the detail, I for one would have challenged the “minute” as highly inappropriate.
3. There is no evidence that it is a “minute” at all. It has never attained that status.There is no evidence that it was ever proposed , seconded , amended or ratified. Ratification didn’t happen at the next EC meeting on 24th November or any other time . An unratified “minute” remains a private concoction with no status at all either in the party or in the courts.
CONFIDENTIALITY
In my 16 years as a lay official in the EIS, I have frequently attended meetings over grievances where members’ personal difficulties have had to be discussed. DETAILS OF SUCH PERSONAL DIFFICULTIES WOULD NEVER BE MINUTED IN THE EIS OR ANY OTHER TRADE UNION. Only outcomes are minuted.
FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG
The approach of Alan McCombes, Keith Baldassara and co. to Tommy’s fight with the NotW was fundamentally flawed.
They were correct to let Tommy know about their concerns informally.
I would argue (though admittedly hindsight is a wonderful thing) that they overreacted in calling an emergency EC to discuss the matter with the intention of forcing their view of the matter on Tommy or making him resign.
They were absolutely wrong to minute the detail of the discussion. The “minute” was then constructed to include a summary of the arguments put by Tommy and Alan McCombes around a private and personal matter. The rest of the “minute” then followed the normal EC minutes pattern.
There never was a need to retain such a detailed record of the meeting. The “historical record” argument is not acceptable as an excuse for retaining a detailed “minute”. For Allan Green to refuse to destroy the “minute” once he knew Tommy Sheridan was pursuing his case against the NotW was inexcusable.
By then it had become a question of “Which side are you on ?”- Tommy’s or NotW?
We knew by then that there was a mole leaking internal SSP information against Tommy to Paul Hutcheon of the Sunday Herald. Someone then leaked a (different)concocted minute to the NotW. Then in May the mole struck again. Paul Hutcheon revealed on the morning of the NC meeting that the mole had lodged an affidavit with him giving their account of the November 9th meeting. (That mole is still active, working not just against Tommy Sheridan but against the SSP as a whole. Most recently Paul Hutcheon wrote an article based on a paper on SSP finances that had gone only to the EC)
Despite knowing what the mole had done and anxious to appear the “good guys” the EC wasted about £25.000 of the Party’s money on a foredoomed legal challenge and Alan McCombes even went to jail to protect the privacy of a “minute” that should never have existed.
The May NC rescued the party from potential bankruptcy by abandoning the badly thought through defiance strategy. We were left with a disastrous mess. We saw in court 11 members some of whom felt trapped by the “minute” into testifying against Tommy. Others, disgusted by the machinations of McCombes, Green, Leckie & co. over the “minute”, disputed its accuracy. Had the “minute” not existed or been destroyed, we wouldn’t be in this sorry mess. Alan McCombes & co. need to recognize that without their disastrous “minute” Tommy would have wiped the floor with the NotW( if the case had even got to court).
It is time to end the public mud slinging. The cause of Socialism has been seriously set back by this lamentable episode.
Everyone concerned needs to draw a line under this and move on to confront the real issues.
Posted by: John Dennis | Thursday, August 24, 2006 at 10:46 PM