SOCIALIST UNITY

by Rhian Jones, from Morning Star (first published December 2011)

 

In times of heightened class struggle, increasing knowledge and consciousness of how our predecessors faced similar situations is imperative and this record of the radical local history of Wiltshire is therefore especially welcome.

 

Produced by the county’s Trades Council and based on a series of talks given at a local history day school, the book contains five pieces of largely forgotten or unexplored history which lift the lid on Wiltshire’s militant past.

They cover the 19th and 20th centuries, ranging from academic explorations by Professor Adrian Randall on the machine-breaking “Wiltshire outrages” of 1802, and by Steve Poole on the volatile relationship between the county’s rural labourers and the Chartist movement.

Derique Montaut gives a first-hand account of trade union activism in ’60s and ’70s Swindon and there are contributions by Nigel Costley on Wiltshire’s part in the Captain Swing rebellion of agricultural workers and Dave Chapple on Phyllis and Idris Rose, the husband-and-wife team of Communist local councillors in 1960s Trowbridge.

This is history presented in an accessible and engaging style, aimed at a wide general audience rather than an exclusively academic one.

Accordingly, it takes an expansive view of what counts as working-class history and focuses less on debates on “rough” versus “respectable” popular movements in favour of presenting a compelling narrative of the responses of ordinary people to social and political deprivation and oppression.

The narrative also makes room for the buried gems of historical incident, like the Trowbridge chemist imprisoned in 1839 for displaying bullets in his shop window bearing the label “pills for the Tories.”

A commendable blueprint for future collections of local history, the recording of these working-class episodes adds to the sterling work of industrial and social historians in rescuing our radical forerunners, in EP Thompson’s phrase, “from the enormous condescension of posterity.”

Copies can be purchased by sending a cheque for £8.50 per copy (inclusive of postage) to Rosie McGregor, White Horse (Wilts) TUC, 24 Bearfield Buildings, Bradford-on-Avon, Wiltshire, BA15 1RP.

OR BUY IT ONLINE AT http://whitehorsetuc.org/

by Ewuare X Osayande

I am not a fan of Quentin Tarantino or his movies. I find his treatment of race, gender and class issues trivial and demeaning, lacking any depth whatsoever.

He is a member of a generation of white men who were weaned on a version of Blackness that was served from the shelves of corporate America in the mid-70s. Let him tell it, it was in the theaters watching films like “Shaft” and “Superfly” that he discovered his desire to become a filmmaker.

Blaxploitation films were Hollywood’s answer to the Black Power and Black Arts movements of the late Sixties. In these films we witness the real aspirations of working class Black people at that time as evidenced by organizations such as The Black Panther Party for Self-Defense turned inside out, gutted of all political relevance. These films became the canvas for white men to project their guilt-ridden fantasies of racial retribution. They turned our self-defined expression into a fashion statement, a corporate-sponsored slogan propped up on the billboards that scoured the skylines of ghettos across the country. Tarantino’s fascination with Black culture is not based on actual experience or concern with Black people’s organized struggle for justice, self-determination and liberation. It is based on his coming-of-age white boy experience with commercialized Blackness as filtered through the lens of Hollywood’s B-rated white directors, producers and executives.

So when I walked into the theaters to watch “Django Unchained,” I wasn’t expecting much. What I was expecting was what I have come to expect from a Tarantino film – gratitutous violence intermingled with homoerotic overtones, the overt exploitation of women and a sadistic use of the n-word. The thing is that in doing a film that proposes to treat the issue of slavery in the United States, such images and usages would be required given the obscene and brutal reality that slavery was. So, again, I was expecting Tarantino to have a field day. The problem with Tarantino’s film lies not in that he made use of such images; the problem is in how he used them.

Tarantino’s film was not as violent as I thought it would be or could have been. In fact, he was restrained. Slavery in the United States was violence unmitigated and without restraint.  To define it otherwise, is to tell the most blatant of lies. Tarantino’s treatment of violence of slavery was timid in comparison to the daily reality faced by enslaved Africans. That said, the film failed to faithfully depict the Black men and women that lived under slavery. In “Django Unchained,” Black women are cast as mindless vixens and willing sexual liaisons to white men. Having a white master named “Big Daddy” (with all of its 70’s pimp nostalgia in tact) being called upon affectionately by enslaved women is a disservice to the memories of women like Harriet Jacobs, who resisted the sexual advances of her slave master for seven years by hiding away in the crawl space above a porch. Although Tarantino does manage to portray Kerry Washington’s Broomhilda as having agency (she runs away twice in the film), she never manages to escape the typical patriarchal frame being cast as a mere object for the hero’s affection. Rather than escaping slavery on her own merit, she is made to be rescued by her prince on horseback … and Harriet Tubman rolls over in her grave.

In Tarantino’s homoerotic white patriarchal fantasy we witness what is rare in American cinema – a blockbuster film that portrays the Black man as “the hero that rescues the girl and kills everyone that dares to stand in his way.” The problem with this is that the depiction of Django is a parody of history. From the moment Django and Schultz step out of the saloon facing an entire town of angry white men with their guns aimed at their faces, I knew that what would come after this would render the rest of the film mere fantasy. And from that scene to the last, every interaction Django has with a white man is unrealistic and unfaithful to the history the story is set in.

No, this film is not history. Neither is it historical. Tarantino does what white men do. Rewrite history. The facts are irrelevant. For white filmmakers, truth is in the mind of the beholder. When it comes to the Black experience, they can do what they have done to Black people throughout American history – whatever they please.

For me, the greater crime in this regard goes to Spielberg and his film “Lincoln.” Spielberg promotes this film as being true to history, yet leaves out a critical player in that history. For him to make a film about Abraham Lincoln and the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation and not include Frederick Douglass is be akin to someone making a film about Lyndon Johnson and the signing of the Voting Rights Act and leave out Dr. King. Incredible, right? Yet, that is exactly what Spielberg did.

I did find Tarantino’s treatment of white people interesting in this movie. He does a decent job of treating the dynamics of whiteness as played out in the plantation system – and in the process makes a statement on whiteness as it is played out today. He showcases white men who are enforcers of the plantation system. These white men do not own plantations, themselves. They merely work to enforce the plantation system. But that is not meant to diminish the power they wield over the lives of the enslaved. Even mired in ignorance and illiteracy, they still command a clear authority above the very Africans who are more intelligent than they are – as evidenced by the character of Django. This dynamic is played out very well in the scene where one of Candie’s “Mandigoes” is captured after attempting escape. In it, we see a dialogue between Candie and one of his white overseers whose garbled words are not intelligible, whatsoever. That scene was a telling indictment on the wage of whiteness that was paid out to buy the systemic complicity of impoverished whites who had more in common with enslaved Africans than the men and women who exploited them both. But that one scene and scenes like it were undermined by the comedic atmosphere that surrounded them throughout the film, enabling most viewers to just laugh it off and miss the message.

“Django Unchained” is a knock-off of Sergio Corbucci’s 1966 spaghetti western. According to Austin Fisher’sRadical Frontiers in the Spaghetti Western: Politics, Violence and Popular Italian Cinema, Sergio Corbucci’s films were revolutionary efforts to dramatize the brutality of the Italian state at a time when the working class were literally in the streets protesting policies they considered neo-fascist. Many of the directors of these films found inspiration from the writings of Che Guevera, Mao Tse-Tung, Leon Trotsky and Frantz Fanon! Imagine what kind of film Tarantino could have made had he injected “Django Unchained” with the philosophy of a Fanon. But that would have been too much work for Tarantino. He can’t seem to get past his juvenile obsession with gun-fire, bloodshed and gore to investigate the political messages that lie behind the bullets.

One of the most disturbing moments in the film was when Candie snorts “Why don’t they [the enslaved Africans] just rise up?” The rhetorical remark plays into the American white supremacist myth that Black people passively accepted slavery. No white slave owner conscious of the history of just his lifetime would make such an unchallenged statement in the late 1850′s. He would surely know the story of Nat Turner. He would certainly have been told of the conspiracies of Denmark Vesey and Gabriel Prosser. And that is just the short-list. In placing such ahistoric commentary in the film, Tarantino does more than lie on the history of slavery, he trashes the legacies of true Black heroes.

In keeping with his desire to mash up Blaxploitation and Spaghetti Westerns, he messed over the memory of a people still chained by the legacy of slavery. In an interview on NPR he was asked what he thought about his film premiering soon after the Sandy Hook mass shooting. A more appropriate question in light of the film’s subject matter would be to consider how his film glorifies the gun violence that has too many young Black men  believing they can shoot their way out of the conflicts they encounter on the street. His film aggrandizes a violence that is not history but present day reality. A reality that has the Black community left grappling with the crippling effects of a startling statistic: there are as many Black people in the criminal justice system today as there were Black people enslaved in the late 1850′s. Fact is, shooting one’s self out of slavery was a much riskier venture than the film proposes. The system knew and knows how to handle that. Black men and women had to be and were smarter than that. They came together and organized collectively. They had to outfox the fox. I am referring to men like Robert Smalls who stole a ship right under the noses of the Confederate army and liberated himself and a band of his fellows and their families. He would go on to become one of the first Black elected officials from the South to serve in the U.S. Congress.

Tarantino could have tried to make a film about any number of great Black men and women who beat slavery on their own terms. Thing is, making such a film would require having a real relationship with Black struggle. Tarantino is confused. He believes that dabbling in stereotypes is the equivalent to treating the Black experience. He doesn’t have a real relationship with Black people, our history, our culture, our reality. And he doesn’t want one. To paraphrase Frederick Douglass he wants Blackness without the struggle.

With “Django Unchained,” Tarantino is saying to Black people, “I know Hollywood won’t let y’all make a movie like this, so let me do it for you.” He is one of those whites who believe they can use their privilege for the benefit of the oppressed. But in the process, what real benefits are gained?

As the Black intelligentsia and artistic elite bemoan and debate the merits of this film, there is a greater concern here that is being missed – our  lack of control and influence in Hollywood. Yes, it is true – a Black person could not have gotten this film made in Hollywood. Even truer, a Black person cannot get any film green-lighted in Hollywood that attempts to tell the story of slavery in the Americas as it actually happened. Just ask famed actor Danny Glover who has been working for years to get a film made on the Haitian Revolution. In 2008 Glover, appearing at a press conference in Paris, stated that Hollywood financiers dismissed the film stating that it lacked white heroes. The racism of the industry remains as virulent as when the first Hollywood film “A Birth of a Nation” appeared in theaters across the country. The NAACP picketed that film in 1915. This year, “Django Unchained” is up for four NAACP awards. Is this a sign of progress or of something else? Such valorization of Hollywood and films that Hollywood produces casts a long shadow over the incredible films that are being produced by independent Black filmmakers. We lack a viable organization that would check Hollywood’s racism as well as highlight the considerable and valuable work being done by Black filmmakers not chained to the deep pockets of the likes of 20^th Century Fox, Warner Bros. or Columbia. Sad fact is that Black actors in Hollywood, those that could bankroll such an organization or such an effort, are still chained to the executive offices of these corporations. Thus, we are left with great Black actors confined to roles that leave us engaged in a debate that does little to empower us, either economically or culturally.

Tarantino has stated that there are many great films that have yet to be made on the subject of slavery. I agree. “Django Unchained” is not one of them. Until we are able to pay our ten or twelve dollars to see Glover’s story of Toussaint L’Ouverture and the Haitian Revolution brought to the silver screen or any other film on slavery that has the gall to tell it like it was without apology and that captures the victorious spirit of our people’s struggle, I encourage you to search out Haile Gerima’s “Sankofa.” You will not be disappointed.

Ewuare X. Osayande (www.osayande.org) is a poet, essayist and political activist. He is founder and director of POWER: People Organized Working to Eradicate Racism. Follow his work on Facebook: Ewuare Xola Osayandeand Twitter: @EwuareXOsayande. His latest book is entitled Whose America?

I am no fan of David Miliband, but during the Commons debate on the Tory Welfare Reform Bill, he used the example of a Labour Party poster from 1929 to illustrate the mindset of the Tories, both yellow and blue, when it comes to equality and making sacrifices during a recession.

It is a very effective poster, which speaks more powerfully than words, and Labour could do worse than produce an up to date version now.

David Miliband’s speech is worth listening to. He spoke powerfully and landed some telling blows on the Tories and their Lib-Dem bag carriers.

They really are the scum of the Earth.

 

 

 

Philosophy Football’s Victory at Stalingrad Night Out

Saturday 2 February 2013. The 70th Anniversary of the Red Army’s Victory at Stalingrad.

“Meet Comrade Feelgood.” Q Magazine.

The blistering hot socialist R&B of Thee Faction will be providing anthems to march, and dance to! A night of musical mayhem and purpose.

“Balkan ska meets Ottoman punk in The Trans-Siberian’s infectious brass blow-out.” Time Out

Co-headliners The Trans-Siberian March Band are a Balkan Brass band with a
fearsome blend of two clarinets, two saxophones, three trumpets, two tubas, two trombones,guitar,vocals and two percussionists, they never fail to get audiences dancing.

Opening the night, Seumas Milne columnist on the Guardian and author of The Revenge of History discusses the meaning of Stalingrad with Geoffrey Roberts acclaimed historian of the Eastern Front and author of Stalin’s General: The Life of Georgy Zhukov who is joined by Susan Richards, editor of the OpenDemocacy Russia website and author of Lost and Found in Russia. Reporting from today’s anti-fascist frontline, Matthew Collins, author of Hate.

At Rich Mix, 35-47 Bethnal Green Road London E1 (5 mins walk from Liverpool Street station. Doors open 6pm, show starts 7pm.

A Philosophy Football night out for a one-party state of ideas and entertainment, in association with the Hope not Hate Campaign.

TICKETS JUST £9.99. From Philosophy Football or call 01273 472 721

Bookings online at Philosophy Football

My decision to publish a redacted version of a transcript of the part of the SWP’s conference dealing with the report of the disputes committee has proven controverisal, as I knew it would. Before I go any further, let me share with you an email from Charlie Kimber on behalf of the SWP, which I think in the circumstances is civil enough even though I don’t agree with it:

Charlie Kimber To [email protected]
Dear Andy Newman,

I am shocked and outraged that you have published a transcript of the Disputes Committee session at the recent SWP conference. It is of course fundamentally an attack on the individuals involved and their right to speak openly about these events. They did so in the belief that what they said was for the people in the room only. You – and whoever sent you this information – have betrayed that trust.

Did it occur to you to contact anyone involved in the case, or any of the people who are readily identifiable from this transcript before you published it?

It is also an assault on the SWP, its democracy, and our attempts to deal with this issue fairly.

Organisations that have to deal with personal cases and allegations of this sort deserve the right to privacy about the details of the proceedings. Do you think that trade unions, for example, should publish transcripts of such cases?

I do not believe you are motivated by any considerations apart from a desire to damage the individuals involved, and the SWP, and to achieve tawdry publicity.

You should never have published the transcript and should take it down immediately.

Charlie Kimber , SWP national secretary

Let us start with the political context. The SWP has been the largest far left group in Britain for some time, and played a vital role in the launching and sustained campaigning of the Stop the War Coalition, it has also been one of the driving forces in campaigning against the far right, through its participation in Unite Against Fascism. It also has a relatively high profile, especially on university campuses, and for many people coming across the SWP it will be their first contact with the socialist movement. It also has a limited but not unimportant footprint in some unions.

What is more, whether we agree with their politics or not, it is a characteristic of the British political scene that despite their relatively small size, the outside left is dominated by Marxist groups like the SWP and Socialist Party, and this has an impact on the practicalities of building the left in broader terms.

This year’s SWP conference saw an unusual degree of division, with rival factions, alternative slates for the Central Committee, a clearly fractious rumour mill, and expulsions of dissidents. What is significant is that the divisions have seemed to take on a generational aspect. The vote on whether or not to accept the Disputes Committee report saw the SWP conference split almost exactly down the middle. In an organisation where votes are always unanimous in favour of the status quo, this is effectively a defeat for the current leadership, despite their narrow formal victory.

The interest in this issue is not a prurient one due to the nature of the allegations, but a political one because the Disputes Committee report was challenged and almost rejected.

Now while we would all prefer that this political dispute concerned a wholesome disgreement about an issue like the Syrian revolt, or whether or not to support Len McCluskey, the real world issue that has cleft the SWP is a messy and unpleasant one concerning serious allegations of sexual impropriety, and the preceived mishandling of the complaint by the committee tasked with resolving it. This has spilled over into broader questioning of the democratic deficit in the SWP, and has exposed some of the rather crude bullying that some SWP members feel they have been subjected to.

If the SWP is facing a serious crisis, as seems likely, then that is of significance to the wider left, and the actual nature of the dispute cannot be contained. Let us be clear, there has already been leaking by word of mouth, and the nature of the allegations against a senior SWP CC member has been circulating around left activists and trade union officials for a while. Furthermore it is clear that even within the SWP there is very serious disquiet about the way the allegations were handled. There was no putting this back in the box.

Once I received this transcript in an unsolicited email, I had to decide whether to publish or not. I decided that whether I personally published it or not, then it would find its way onto the Internet. Note that Charlie Kimber does not dispute the accuracy of the transcript. By publishing it first I could at least ensure that the names were redacted. In the Internet age, closed sessions of conferences are unsustainable.

But more generally, I think there is a genuine public interest in publishing, so that the broader left appreciates what the SWP is consuming itself over, and in providing the accurate facts, rather than allowing rumour to poison the well. I believe it is better for the entire transcript to be published than for it to be selectively quoted. The way that the debate was conducted seemed fair, both sides were given a fair hearing, and no inappropriate detail was revealed.

I reject utterly the idea that I have somehow breached a duty of trust to the SWP, I have no such duty to them. With regard to an expectation of privacy, the debate at SWP conference already restricted itself from discussing personal details, and the debate concerned itself with the process of the Disputes Committee investigation and report.

Nor is this website typically focused on dscussing the SWP or other left groups; it is a topical issue for the left, and thereforre that is being reflected on this blog, but it is the opposition within the SWP, not myself, who is driving the agenda here.

Recent days have seen articles in newsapers around the world seeking to create an expectation of crisis in Venezuela, due to President Chavez’s poor health,  Spain’s ABC newspaper has claimed the president is in a coma and only kept alive by a life-support system. The Guardian reports that social networks are abuzz with speculation that he is already dead. The Independent writes:

A shroud of political doubt enveloped Venezuela today as rumours grew that President Hugo Chavez may be close to death in a Cuban hospital or, at the very least, will not be well enough to make his own inauguration to a new term of office in just five days’ time.

While top lieutenants of his socialist, anti-US government still have not provided full details of the President’s condition they are not hiding its seriousness, revealing in public statements that he is suffering a “severe respiratory infection”. Mr Chavez, leader of the western hemisphere’s most oil-rich nation and one of the world’s most divisive political figures, has not been seen in public since undergoing cancer surgery in Havana on 11 December.

Few now believe he will be fit enough to leave Cuba in time for his inauguration to a new six-year term, which is due to take place in Caracas next Thursday. Yet his ruling socialist party, the PSUV, has struggled to explain what would happen were he not able to attend, in part because the leftist Bolivarian constitution that Mr Chavez himself helped craft over a decade ago offers no clear answer.

In fact, Venezuelan Vice President Nicolas Maduro announced on Friday (4 January) that President Hugo Chavez’s new term of office will begin this Thursday 10 January.

VP Maduro explained that the official Presidential swearing in ceremony can be done at a later date by the Supreme Court, in line with Articles 231-235 of Venezuela’s constitution. He called on “all Venezuelans to read their copy of the Constitution” where the current situation of the country is clearly outlined.

The announcement about the new term of office was made with Hugo Chavez currently in Cuba receiving treatment for cancer.

Hugo Chavez won a record number of votes to be re-elected as President with 55% last October. But Maduro has warned about the right-wing’s attempts to use Chavez’s current absence to force a new election. He explained that opposition leader, Guillermo Aveledo recently sent a letter to all ambassadors in Venezuela in which he develops “a false thesis of what is stated in the National Constitution.”

He added that “In recent hours the misinterpretations of the right have increased as they believe that their hour has come. They have launched a national and international campaign against the Venezuelan people, looking to take advantage of the circumstances in order to destabilise the country.” The objective of these plans is to “reverse and destroy the Bolivarian Revolution” he highlighted.

On Saturday Venezuela’s National Assembly (its parliament) began its new term of office and re-elected Diosdado Cabello as President of the Assembly. During the session Cabello explained that “Hugo Chavez was elected president and he will continue to be president beyond January 10. No one should have any doubt … this is the constitutional route.”

An Emergency Public Meeting in Support of Venezuela

Thursday January 10, 7.00pm,
Bolivar Hall, 54 Grafton Way, London, W1T 5DL (nearest tube: Warren Street)

——————————————————————————–

• Samuel Moncada, Venezuelan Ambassador

• Tariq Ali, writer • Jeremy Corbyn MP

KAREN R: This is the section on the disputes committee. My name’s Karen R, I’m from Manchester and I’m going to chair this session. There are two items for discussion under this session. One will be a report from the disputes committee, and people will have the opportunity to challenge that, at the end of which there will be a vote on whether or not to accept the report from the disputes committee. The second part will be an election for a new disputes committee.

I understand that there are very strong feelings around the report of the disputes committee this year, and I think it’s important that we do try and explain some of the ground rules on which this debate will take place. Clearly we’re talking about very difficult issues and I think it’s important that we do understand that we do that properly and we take that seriously.

The first point is that people have an absolute right to challenge the disputes committee report and they can look at the process and the procedures that the disputes committee are presenting to you today. What we cannot do is re-hear any discussion that they’ve had in terms of the detail. We are not going to sit and listen to the detailed discussion, we are going to listen to the presentation that they present, and the challenges to the process and the procedure. Any attempt to introduce any evidence about what happened is not going to be acceptable in this hall because that’s not fair to any of the individuals who are involved. (applause) I’m (inaudible) that we do stick to that, and I will be making sure that we do stick to that, because people have rights within this process and one of those is the right to be treated with respect.

The second point that I want to make is that it’s not acceptable in this session, or in any session, to make personal accusations about any member of the SWP. We have a process for doing that and that process is very clear. If people have personal complaints and accusations they need to use that process to do it, not the floor of this conference, because that’s not going to help the debate.

The third thing is about the tone of the debate. I think it is important that whether you agree or disagree with what people say, it is important that people are listened to with respect and allowed to be heard. I am not going to tolerate disruption or any attempt to try and stop people being heard, regardless of what they say, as long as it is within those rules that we’ve established.

So saying that, I’m going to bring forward the first part of our agenda. Because there are people who have already informed us that they wish to challenge this report, they have been given space to do that and they have been allowed time within this debate to do thar. Therefore if you want to speak in this debate you can put a slip in, but there is only a very very small chance that you will be called, because a number of people have already expressed their right to challenge, and there will be the disputes committee who have a right of reply to those. So as I say you can put a slip in, but it is unlikely that you will be heard.

The way it will happen is that somebody from the disputes committee will present the report, and then there will be an extended speech from the first person who challenges, then we will move on to the debate with people who have three minutes each.

OK, so I’m going to introduce Candy U who’s from the disputes committee, who will make this report.

CANDY U: Firstly I want to explain who and what the disputes committee are. We thought that because you’ve heard so much about us you might like to see who we are, so this is the disputes committee. (Members of disputes committee stand up.) There are eight of us, we’re elected every year, and we are accountable to the conference.

We’re not a law court. We are here to protect the interests of the party, and to make sure that any inappropriate behaviour of any kind by comrades is dealt with, and we do that according to the politics of a revolutionary party. So, you know, we’re not just opposed to sexism and the abuse of women, we understand where it comes from and we’re actively involved in campaigning and challenging and fighting that, and understand how important it is to do that if we are going to change the system that we live under.

I want to give a brief summary of the three complaints that we’ve had this year.

Comrade Alpha from Bristol was expelled from the party for domestic violence. Comrade Beta was suspended for six months for fighting in a nightclub and abusive behaviour, and because he breached his suspension that was extended for a further six months. Those two have not been disputed by the comrades involved, so I’m going to concentrate on the third case, and I’ll read out a brief summary of the decision that we came to.

In September 2012, a comrade who we’ve called W, a woman, made a complaint of rape against Comrade Delta, a member of the party’s central committee. The CC immediately asked Comrade Delta to stop all activity on behalf of the party until the complaint had been investigated. The disputes committee met over a period of four extended days in October 2012.
We agreed to use the standard legal definition of rape, but to also widen the remit of what we investigated to include questions of sexual assault, harassment and whether the relationship as a whole was abusive.

The disputes committee found that the charges were not proved. We didn’t think that Comrade Delta raped W. And it was not proved to the disputes committee that Comrade Delta had sexually assaulted, harassed or abused W.

We found it difficult to rule on these issues, because the versions of events differed substantially and there were no witnesses. The disputes committee didn’t recommend any disciplinary action against Comrade Delta, and that final report was backed by six out of seven of the panel members.

The seven members who were on that panel, who heard that complaint, were Rhetta M from Manchester, Maxine B from Sheffield, Dave S from Glasgow, Pat S and myself from London. (Candy forgot to name the two CC representatives also on the panel, Esme C and Amy L.) We’re all experienced comrades who are active in the party and a number of us have experience of dealing with people who have experience of rape or abuse.

And because this is such an important report we’ve actually written it together. So bear with me, I may refer closely to my notes or read from them, because we thought that was important.
I want to say sometihng about confidentiality, because we always treat complaints in confidence, but in this case the woman concerned was asking us to preserve her anonymity, and we took that very seriously. People didn’t tell their partners even about this case. And it is because of that question of confidentiality that we’re not going to tell you the details of, of, er, of what we heard during the hearings.

I mean I guess it’s obvious to say, but we don’t have disputes committee hearings in public. And if the details are made public, it really is very unlikely that in the future people will feel that they can come forward with complaints like that, particularly those of an intimate nature.

A few general comments before I start on the actual process. We really, obviously, understand that comrades are concerned and worried this case, and I think the hardest thing was for comrades to hear that an allegation of rape had been made against a leading member of the party, and to hear it through rumour and innuendo, and not from the party itself. And I understand, we understand, why people are upset and angry about that. But we want to make clear why that happened, because it is isn’t actually our responsibility that that happened.
Unfortunately information about this complaint wasn’t kept confidential in the way that we had asked. In fact, people outside the party, such as Chris Bambery, members of Counterfire, members in Unite Against Fascism, who then told Mark Serwotka, the general secretary of PCS – all these people knew about the case within a week of the hearing, before we’d even finished our final report. Now that is obviously unacceptable, but it also, we understand, put comrades in an extremely difficult position, because they were having to defend something that they hadn’t heard about from the party.

And we also know that it meant that comrades have heard about this through rumour, they’ve heard half-truths, they’ve heard things that actually aren’t true being circulated. We do think that that is extremely regrettable, but I hope you understand that it wasn’t something that was under our control.

I really want to stress two things. One is that our request for confidentiality is not a cover up, comrades. We’re not trying to hide anything because of that. But we also believe really strongly that this report should be given to conference, and that that is the correct place for us to do this. I guess it is obvious, but you can’t deal with something like this through circulating an email report. It has to be done face to face.

But it’s also essential that we do this at conference because of democracy and accountability. If we were to do this report to the national committee or anywhere else in the party, then people who want to question or challenge the report won’t be here. We think it’s right that we do this in front of conference, who elected us, and that we should do it in front of the whole party.
Just one other general point, is that we did want to remind people what they were voting on here. Because this isn’t about the CC, alternarive slates, the factions, it’s not about the comrades who have been expelled, it’s not about a debate about feminism or women’s liberation. It is actually about – and I know it’s difficult because of all of the debates but I do think we have to separate them – it is really about whether we have carried out this process correctly, politically correctly, democratically, and that we’ve done that to the best of our abilities.

I want to move on to how we came to our decisions, and some of the questions that we discussed in advance. So we were asked by the chair to, if any of us felt that we were too close to any of the parties involved, or if we felt that we would be seen to not be objective in any way, to rule ourselves out. One comrade who was from W’s district did do that.

We then discussed the situation that we all knew Comrade Delta. We knew his important role in the party and on the central committee, and none of us knew W or knew her well. We agreed that we would have to be especially careful to take that into account in the way that we dealt with this.

We also discussed how difficult it is for women in capitalist society to be heard if they make a complaint of rape or harassment. We know how the courts and the police make women, you know, try to blame women, how few rapes are reported and how few of them are successfully prosecuted. And we understood how personally difficult it was for someone to come forward with a complaint like this.

So we considered how we could make that as supportive as possible, and not add to her distress if we could, and try to accommodate her wishes as much as possible. So we agreed – normally the person who the complaint is about would be in the room – but we agreed that Comrade Delta wouldb’t be there when either she or her witnesses spoke. And we would normally ask questions from all of the panel to the witnesses concerned. We didn’t think that was appropriate, so we proposed that the questions be asked just through one person that she chose. And she had a comrade with her to support her. And so in advance and during the hearing, we tried to make sure that she had whatever support we could give.

Then in terms of the process, we did discuss very carefully how to approach the question of rape, and we didn’t just want to use the standard legal definition, so we agreed to extend the remit in the way that the report summarised of what we investigated, so we also wanted to include questions of sexual assault or harassment, as well as whether Comrade Delta’s conduct was in any way abusive or the relationship as a whole.

We noted that the complaint concerned incidents that had taken place over a period of about six months in 2008 and 2009, which was three or four years before we met. We also noted that there had been an informal complaint about these incidents from the same woman in July 2010, which hadn’t come to the disputes committee, and at that time she complained of sexual harassment rather than of rape.

We were clear that there were a number of reasons why it might take a period of time for a woman to come forward with a complaint like this. And we also understood that there was a process whereby the woman might change how she perceived these incidents, which W now described to us as an issue of rape. We therefore agreed it was essential to investigate the complaint that was in front of us.

We looked at how the complaint was handled in 2010. She’d raised concerns of harassment, about these same incidents, with the central committee. Central committee members had met with Comrade Delta, who denied them. And at that time W was asked if she wanted to go to the disputes committee, but she confirmed that she didn’t want to do that. She wanted an apology, for her views to be recognised, and for the CC to be made aware of them. An informal resolution was reached which was agreed and accepted by W.

Now, she was concerned to preserve her anonymity then and the CC had insisted on that, but people may remember if they were at conference in 2011 that information about this appeared on the internet just before our national conference in January 2011, and as a result of this the CC made a statement to conference about it. And we agreed with the views of those who felt that this conference decision hadn’t been handled well, and we noted that the CC had acknowledged this after conference and subsequently had proposed a new protocol, which ensures that any complaints about CC members now, informal or otherwise, will be referred automatically to the chair of the disputes committee.

We also discussed how we should consider Comrade Delta’s role as a member of the central committee. We expect that CC members’ behaviour should be scrutinised more closely than that of other comrades, because of the role that they play, the elected position that they have, the responsibilites they have, and we entrust them really with the party’s wellbeing, so if their behaviour falls below standard, then it’s the party’s reputation that is damaged.

We also however thought it was important to be clear that the disputes committee doesn’t exist to police moral, er, bourgeois morality, so we agreed that issues that weren’t relevant to us were whether the comrade was monogamous, whether they were having an affair, whether the age differences in their relationahip, because as revolutionaries we didn’t consider that should be our remit to consider issues such as those.

In terms of the process of the investigation, and the questioning of the comrades who came before us, we tried to be as thorough and careful as possible in doing this, so we heard from W and from Comrade Delta, who gave us two very different accounts of what had taken place in 2008 and 2009. We heard from and questioned a number of other comrades. They were people who had been brought as witnesses, either by W or by Comrade Delta. However neither of them were witnesses to the actual events that had taken place at the time. We also heard from Hannah D, Charlie K and Alex C, who are the CC members who had handled the case informally in 2010.

After we’d heard from the witnesses, we called both W and Comrade Delta back in, and we had a long discussion about whether we should ask W any further questions, because we didn’t want to cause her any undue distress. We were also conscious of how the police and the courts put the woman herself on trial.

We’ve heard rumours have circulated about the questions we’re meant to have asked her, which included whether we asked her what she was wearing. And I can tell you comrades, we did not ask that question, it’s just not true.

We only asked questions around the issues that had been presented to us. As I said earlier, we had made clear that we were going to investigate not just the question of rape, but the broader relationship, the broader issues. We had said to both parties before we start that that would mena we might have to ask them some questions that we wouldn’t ask them if we were just investigating the question of rape.

So, coming on to our conclusions. We discussed all that we had heard over quite a long period of time very thoroughly. The conclusions we came to were that we were unanimous in our view that Comrade Delta had not raped W. In relation to the other questions, we considered how to weigh up the different accounts we’d heard very carefully. It was a difficult thing to do, and we tried to take into account all of the issues that might influence our views.

We decided that we didn’t believe that any of the allegations were proved, and that was why we didn’t find that Comrade Delta was sexually abusive or harassing, and therefore why we didn’t recommend any disciplinary action against him. If we had believed that he was guilty of any misconduct, then we would have either recommended his expulsion or his removal from the central committee, which would have been the two options available to us.

So that was the conclusion that we came to. We would like to stress that we’ve only had one complaint against Comrade Delta. But after we concluded the hearing, a woman comrade, who we’ve called X, wanted to give a report to the disputes committee which she believed was relevant to the case. She confirmed to us that she didn’t want to make a formal complaint, and we explained that we’d concluded our case. But we agreed to meet with her and to consider what she had to say. So we met with her, and with Comrade Delta.

We were clear that it didn’t change our view of the outcome of W’s case, the complaint that we’d heard. We would like to say that the issues that X raised didn’t include the suggestion that there had been any sexual activity that had taken place between her and Comrade Delta. She did subsequently contact us, and she said that she wanted to register that she was going to make a formal complaint, and that she didn’t want it dealt with until after this conference. We asked her to make clear what her complaint was, but we have not received that.

The other issue that I just want to raise before I finish is that we have received a deal of correspondence from comrades, making complaints about how other comrades have operated in this, since, since this case has happened, and especially about breaches of confidentiality. And we were also asked to investigate these by the CC. So the disputes committee will look at these after conference, and if there are any serious breaches of party discipline, we will investigate them. But in general, we do hope that the conference will make some political decisions that do allow us to move on, without the disputes committee sitting in permanent session.

To conclude, we are obviously – the seven of us – the only people who have heard all the evidence that was brought before us. Because we can’t go into the details, that means that you will have to take our report and the conclusions that we came to really on trust, that we did this correctly. All I can say, all I can emphasise really, is how seriously we took this process. We met over a period of four long days. We were as thorough and meticulous as we could be. And I would like to stress that if we had believed that Comrade Delta was guilty of any misconduct, we would have recommended disciplinary sanctions.

And as I’ve said, we discussed things really from every angle, politically, grounded in our belief in the poliics of our organisation. We are unanimous that we came to this with no preconceived agenda, that we used the best methods of the revolutionary tradition. We discussed, debated, considered, changed our minds, listened to each other, and then we came to the best conclusions that we could, to the best of our abilities, and it’s on that basis that I put this report to you and to the conference.
(applause)

KAREN: I don’t really think applause is applicable in any of these debates or contributions. I think we should just listen carefully and give our judgment at the end of them. The next speaker is Viv S from Dalston branch. She’ll have five minutes, which is an extended contribution.

VIV S: I should make clear that I’m not speaking from Dalston, I’m just speaking as I was involved as a witness in the dispute. (Audience: Can’t hear! Mic!) Is that better? Comrades, I want to start from something I think we can all agree on, which is that we are very proud of the party’s politics and tradition in fighting women’s oppression, and I think we saw this in action this summer where the rest of the left really failed the test of the Assange case, getting the issue of imperialism wrong and on the issue of women’s oppression. I think George Galloway paid the price for that and Respect paid the price for that. We stand head and shoulders above any other organisation when it comes to fighting for women’s liberation.

It’s really because of this that we felt we had to come forward, because when things go wrong we feel they have to be discussed properly, and that’s why we’re raising this challenge.
Now people will have seen in IB3, as Candy’s talked about, some of us were involved in this disputes committee hearing in the summer. We’re very concerned about the way the hearing was conducted, and the failure of the report in our minds to explain the outcome.

The hearing as you’ve heard concerned an accusation of rape, an incredibly serious accusation which we think the committee did take very seriously, and Candy mentioned the fact that the woman had come forward a few years previously at a conference. And the CC did handle the case in the way that she asked them to. But I think it’s important to say that she felt she could come forward two years later because she – as she explained it to me when she rang me up and asked me to give evidence on her behalf – she felt able to actually confront the issues that she’d gone through and actually say that she felt she had been raped. She felt the way the party had handled the Assange case gave her confidence that she would get a fair hearing.

Unfortunately, although Candy’s put a very clear picture of the case, it wasn’t her experience that it went well. She’s incredibly traumatised by the hearing, and I think it’s fair to say that the witnesses are incredibly shocked by some of the things that took place.

I think the most serious for us – because Candy’s absolutely right, nobody as far as I know or as far as the woman has said asked her how she was dressed – but comrades, she was asked about past and subsequent sexual relationships, and she was pressured -

KAREN (interrupts): Could I ask you not to go into the detail of what was discussed, because I don’t think that’s relevant and that is one of the ground rules that we agreed. (Audience groans.) I think if we get into the details of the case – (Many audience members: Let’s hear it!) I did ask if people could not actually interrupt. We are attempting to deal with a very very serious issue, and I think it’s important that a guarantee of confidentiality was given. I think that then if we try and then hear this, hearing small elements of what took place and the detail of the content, then we’re actually moving to a different agenda to the one that we agreed. I suggest we attempt to stick to that.

VIV: Should I go on? Thank you. My point is that she was asked on the basis of gossip, that had apparently been relayed in a meeting, about a relationship with another male comrade. Now that’s not going into the detail of the case, that was an accusation that was made. I don’t think there is any place in the SWP in respect of procedure for us to question the woman, or anyone else for that matter, about their sexual behaviour in relation to a rape case.

But Candy, I think you also have to admit that there were other problems.

She wasn’t offered support – we asked for support. The woman had to ask the disputes committee if she could have someone in the room with her, she had to ask the panel so that she knew one person in the room. She knew nobody on the disputes committee panel.

And I think one of the most distressing things for her was that she was expected to respond immediately to the evidence that Comrade Delta was able to bring – she never got to see it in advance. He had her statement for weeks before she appeared in front of the panel. Some of the issues that were raised were things she had blocked out, and it was an incredibly traumatic experience for her.

And yes, I think Candy’s absolutely right to say it’s important that the comrades on the panel were asked about whether or not they felt able to take part in the hearing, but I think we do need to consider and think about very carefully – and this is not an attack on the individuals involved – that when five of the people hearing the case were either current or former CC members, and that all of the people had worked incredibly closely with Comrade Delta, which is going to happen when you’re dealing with a leading comrade, I think you have to acknowledge that it brings an incredibly huge burden to bear. I’ve worked with Comrade Delta for 12 years and it’s an incredibly difficult situation.

Shortly after the hearing Candy referred to, a second woman came forward with an allegation of sexual harassment, and she will speak herself in this session. I think it’s important to say that she’s been moved from her party job following giving that evidence, and that she’s been told her presence at the centre would disrupt the harmony of the office. I think this constitutes punishing her for making a complaint of sexual harassment.

The main concern for us is that two comrades have come forward, with an allegation of rape and an allegation of sexual harassment. I think the response of ‘not proven’ does not explain in any way, in any sufficient way at all, how those sanctions have been applied, particularly given that two years previously the CC had clearly taken some kind of discussion and action.
The way the CC has dealt with the situation subsequently has very much made the situation worse, by not giving details within the bounds of confidentiality to the NC, for example. And -
(Red ‘stop speaking’ light goes on)

I’m hoping for a little bit of extra time, because people did interrupt me.

KAREN: I’ve given you an extra minute, Viv, I’m afraid. (Viv and Karen talk over each other)

VIV: All I want to say is that it’s very important comrades are clear we are not asking for the disputes committee to re-hear the case. The decision stands. We’re asking that comrades reject the report in recognition that there were serious failings in the way the hearing was conducted, and that a decision of ‘not proven’ does not sufficiently explain how it is that two women can come forward and not be believed. And -

KAREN: No. You have to -
(Viv leaves stage to applause)

KAREN: (over applause) … not to applaud contributions in this session. The next speaker will be Rhetta M from the disputes committee.

RHETTA M: Everybody who sat on this DC sat as revolutionary socialists but also with our world experience. I’m going to come to that in a minute, but just to respond to a couple of things from Viv first.

As I think was said by Candy before, all the questions that the DC put to W were shaped by the complaint that the person, W, brought to us. First of all it was in writing. And there were weeks between us receiving that written complaint and us coming together to listen to her, and to investigate the complaint, but I have to say that the delay was – we basically met as soon as W was available to meet with us, around her other commitments etc.

And the other thing that I want to say is that, er, yes, there was one complaint, and it isn’t the case that two women came forward with complaints against Comrade Delta. That was made very clear, I hope, to you in the report. We heard a complaint, we concluded our hearing, we were unanimous in our findings, and some time after that a second person came forward and said they wanted to share some aspects of their perspective on their relationship with Comrade Delta with us. We still have not received any other than one complaint on Comrade Delta.

I just want to go back to the world experience, and I want to say a few things about myself, which I didn’t say to any of the comrades in the dispute committee when we sat. (inaudible) I was trained as a rape counsellor, and I’ve been doing that work, working with people surviving rape, ever since, through my working life. I also did a doctorate on rape and aid. (Some personal information removed)

When I received this complaint, my first reaction was to ring the chair and to ask straightaway, how are we supporting the complainant? I was reassured that this was offered to her, and she had said she had all the support she wanted from the DC and the CC. So because of that, as has been said before, I want to talk a little bit about process.

Because of understanding the need to be as absolutely supportive as possible, Comrade Delta was only in the room when he was questioned by us. He wasn’t in the room otherwise. We did everything we could to put our questions – and in this instance, in the chair requested, we were thorough and meticulous in our investigation.

KAREN: That’s time.

RHETTA: At the end of the day, we didn’t find that Comrade Delta had done anything wrong. Because of my experience, my background, I have no hesitation in saying to you that if he had done something wrong (inaudible)

KAREN (over Rhetta): Thank you. The next speaker will be Hannah D.

HANNAH D: I think comrades may know that myself and three other members of the CC – Ray M, Joseph C  and Mark B – have expressed our reservations about the disputes committee report and the CC’s handling of the aftermath at a number of CC meetings since the DC reported. I wanted to request that we had the opportunity to bring this to conference, because we felt that we had a duty to be open to comrades about them.

Why? Not because this is a question of questioning the integrity of comrades on the DC, but because it is right that comrades are able to judge whether, especially in cases of this nature, the report equips them to feel confident that we have dealt with this issue in a way that is beyond repoach.

What are the issues at stake? They have been laid out by Candy. Our politics give us a common understanding of the enormous obstacles facing women who bring complaints of this nature, so we have to understand that no woman comes forward lightly. We have to do everything in our power to give them a sympathetic and supportive hearing. It is essential of course that we seek to establish the facts as well as possible, because that’s essential to do justice to all parties involved.

But because the DC is a political body, it also has to show how our wider politics of oppression were applied in the deliberations and decisions. That’s why the DC worked very hard to deliver a clear verdict on the rape allegation, as well as the wider questions of sexual harassment and conduct. And I think we have to say in relation to the question of conduct, there was clearly some disagreement on the disputes committee, with the comrades only being able to decide that the allegations were not proven, and the chair of the disputes committee reporting to the CC that he felt that the conduct fell short of a CC member.

The question of conduct is not about moralism – it’s to do with standards of behaviour. I think that when two women say that they felt a leading comrade’s behaviour was inappropriate, the question of conduct is entirely relevant. I think in hindsight that given the focuses of the divisions on the DC, and the not proven verdict, that the CC should have taken a clear position on the question of conduct, and given our reasons for accepting Comrade Delta’s resignation – because I think it would have helped mitigate against some of the polarisation that has taken place in the party over the last few months.

I think one of the most regrettable parts of it has been the rumours and speculation on all sides with unwarranted attacks on Comrade Delta and the disputes committee. I think it is of particular concern that the two women – the CC has received complaints about the way in which the two women involved in the complaint have been accused of having done it for a personal grudge or out of political malice, and that those who have been critical, including myself, in the privacy of the CC have been labelled as feminists, autonomists, or motivated by political disagreement. There is no place for these in our party, so let’s acknowledge them, and let’s rebut them strongly at this conference.

I think it would have been helpful to allow comrades to move amendments to the report, rather than giving delegates the choice (Karen talks over Hannah) – hold on, I’ll finish on this – the choice of accepting or rejecting the report. And I think it’s been made clear that if comrades reject the report, the complainants do not want to reopen the case. But I do feel it’s essential that any newly elected DC looks at these questions in order to develop a more effective response in the future.
(Applause)

KAREN: The next speaker will be Dave S.

DAVE S: I just want to make a few points because there’s a lot of speakers and there’s not a lot of time. I concur with some of the things that Hannah said – if people were attacked for bringing a complaint to us because of having political reasons, then we want to make clear that anyone’s got the right to bring a complaint. I think Candy tried to make it clear – it’s not about feminism or attacks on people or anything like that, anybody’s got the right to bring a complaint, and we wouldn’t want to be in a position where the disputes committee isn’t able to encourage people to bring a complaint without personal villification. That’s one of the reasons it’s so important to maintain confidentiality and for us to bring the report to the conference that put us in place in the first place.

I’ve been in the party for 40 years, and I’ve had the misfortune, fortune, you can put it however you like, to have been on disputes committees on occasions over the years. (inaudible) This is by far the most serious and the most vexing I’ve ever been involved in. It’s also the longest running one I think that’s happened, and the most thoroughly investigated that’s happened. We took it very seriously.

And I think – I wanted to deal with a couple of points. I want to make clear that the committee unanimously, all seven of us, agreed that Comrade Delta did not rape W. On the rest of the very serious charges, it was very difficult to deal with incidents that happened three and a half years ago, and we never felt anyone was lying or making up (inaudible), I want to make that quite clear. But there were contradictions in what had taken place and how it had taken place.

There were no witnesses to the events, and there was nothing in terms of evidence and detail that would lead us to believe that Comrade Delta – that it was proved that Comrade Delta (inaudible)

We came to a compromise. The spirit of the ‘not proven’ was that. (inaudible) None of the speakers have said this – and I’d like to think Viv and Hannah – but there have been accusations made against the committee that we’ve acted as a whitewash for Comrade Delta, or as stooges for the central committee.

I speak for myself, but it applies to everybody else. I’ve dealt with disputes cases where I’ve been involved in expelling the full timer for the district, somebody that I’d worked with for years, who’d been a former CC member, who I’d built a friendship with. It was a painful experience, it damaged the district, I can’t say I’m proud of what happened, but we didn’t balk at that. We would have taken action against Comrade Delta if we thought it was merited. There’s more I wanted to say, but I’ve run out of time, comrades, thank you.
(Some applause)

KAREN: The next speaker is Sadia J.

SADIA J: The first thing I want to say is that the complainant is this case frequently asked to come to this session, so she could be aware of what’s being said about her, because it is her case after all. She was prepared to speak out so that people could hear about her experiences and learn from what’s happened here, so that it wouldn’t happen again. But she was denied that right by the CC.

I want to talk about her experiences after she made the complaint. A lie that’s been frequently told is that she’s been manipulated by other people with their own agenda. She refutes this, which is yet another reason why she wanted to be here today.

She thought that if she put a complaint to the party that it would be dealt with in line with the party’s politics and our proud tradition on women’s liberation. Sadly her experience was quite the opposite. She felt that from the beginning – that there were problems from the beginning and she expressed them to Pat Stack. And I have to say that Pat has been really amazing with her throughout this whole process.

(inaudible) … be questioned in line with gossip. And again I’m sad to say that her experience really was the opposite. She feels that she was questioned in quite a reactionary way, and was made to answer questions on the spot as if she was the one on trial.

She was questioned about why she went for a drink with him, her witnesses were repeatedly asked whether she’d been in a relationship with him, and you know, she was asked about (Karen begins to talk over Sadia to warn about providing details) … she was asked about relationships with other comrades including sexual relationships. All this was irrelevant to the case.
We’ve got a proud tradition in the party of rejecting that line of questioning by the state. This is about consent. To date she hasn’t been told what evidence was presented against her by Comrade Delta and by his witnesses. She felt she was being interrogated and felt they were trying to catch her out in order to make her out to be a liar. She did not accept the line of questioning, saying ‘they think I’m a slut who asked for it’.

Rita, a comrade who is experienced in working with rape victims and was supporting her in the questioning – she had to actually go back into the room and have a go at the DC for their inappropriate questions.

Her treatment afterwards has been worse. She feels completely betrayed. No one on the CC has ever contacted her voluntarily, not even to tell her that Comrade Delta was standing down, and she feels she’s been treated as this non-person. The disgusting lies and gossip going round about her has been really distressing and disappointing for her to hear, and the way her own witnesses have been treated in Birmingham hasn’t been much better.

We discussed our concerns with Charlie and Amy before the Birmingham aggregate, and they both stated that they took our concerns on board. At our aggregate, the treatment of her witnesses was so bad that the CC received two formal complaints from comrades, and a formal complaint has been lodged with the disputes committee.

Recently the complainant wanted to attend a meeting and tried to talk to a local member. He told her that it wasn’t appropriate for him to speak to her and he walked away. What kind of message does this send out – that if you have a serious allegation to bring against a leading member, don’t bother because you’ll be victimised for doing so?

Is it right that a young woman has to plan her route to work avoiding paper-sellers, or that she comes away from a meeting crying because people refuse to speak to her? Is it right that her witnesses are questioned about their commitment to the party because they missed a branch meeting?

I’ve always been really proud of being a member of the party and I’ve been really proud of our tradition on women’s oppression. This isn’t about an attack on democratic centralism.

KAREN: You need to wind up.

SABBY: Disagreeing with the (inaudible) doesn’t make the complainant or any of us an anti-Leninist. We’ve always taken a principled stance on this issue. And we’re asking conference to reject this report, and to challenge an emerging culture in our party, so that this can never happen again.
(Applause)

KAREN: The next speaker is Amy L.

AMY L: I just want to explain – I think Candy missed it out by mistake – that on the panel that heard this case, there were two members of the central committee, myself and Esme C. That’s why I’m speaking.

Someone’s just raised the case about whether we considered conduct. I want to be very clear that the disputes committee did consider this. In fact our entire investigation was about conduct. Because Candy outlined, before we heard any of the evidence from anybody, we decided what we would actually investigate. We decided we wouldn’t just investigate the issue of rape that was brought to us, but actually we looked at whether there was sexual assault, harassment, or if the relationship had been abusive.

That really reflected our understanding of women’s oppression. We thought from the start it wouldn’t be good enough to say that there were things we were concerned about, but we didn’t rule on them because it wasn’t in our remit. So we made it our remit. So the whole investigation was actually about conduct, and we extend that to both parties.

Now also then, does that raise the issue of the (expected) conduct of a central committee member? We wouldn’t tolerate issues of rape, of sexism, harassment or abuse from any of our members. But for a central committee member, it’s not just about the personal behaviour, it’s about also damaging the party. It made us more conscious of that. (inaudible) At the end of that process, we did not hide those things that we laid out in our remit.

The other thing was this idea that ‘not proved’ leaves it open. I want to be clear – it was unanimous on the disputes committee, the main charge of rape, we didn’t think Comrade Delta did this. But perhaps not proven left open the other allegations, that he’d done it maybe, maybe not? This was not what was meant and not what we thought.

I have to say, the real concrete proof after we’d listened for four days to all the evidence and everything – the concrete proof that we didn’t think he’d done this was that no disciplinary action was taken at all. If we thought there was any chance of those issues (inaudible) we’d take action whatever the position in the party. I really hope that comrades understand just how seriously we took this process, how we took into consideration our wider politics, and how at the end we came to our decision that Comrade Delta had not done those things, and I ask you to accept this report.
(Smattering of applause)

KAREN: The next speaker will be X.

(Note – X was named in the conference and spoke openly, however I am not naming her in this transcript)

X: Some comrades will already know that I’m the second woman who’s come forward as part of the dispute, and it’s me that’s been removed from my position in the (removed) department. I wanted to say that I’d been a district organiser for (removed) years and I hope people will respect that I wouldn’t come forward lightly.

I want to start by reiterating what Candy said – that this isn’t a trial, comrades won’t get to hear both sides of the story, so you’re never going to be in a position to decide who you believe. However, comrades can take a position on whether the process you think has been adequate.

I also want to add that I think it’s entirely disingenuous that leading members have denied that there is a second complaint. My evidence was effectively a second complaint, but because of the experience of the first case I’m unwilling to have it heard by the current disputes committee as a separate dispute. I don’t accept the account given that they’re not aware of the substance of my complaint – it’s the same as the account that I’d given in the first place.

I want to just quickly outline why I think there were problems with the way the dispute was conducted. First I think the composition of the disputes committee was problematic. Viv has mentioned that five of the seven were former or current CC members, most of the people have close or long term working relationships and in some cases friendships with the accused, and while I don’t for a second question the personal integrity of the individual comrades, when it comes down to, as they said, whose version of events you’re most likely to believe, I do think it creates an unfair bias in this case.

And I want to reiterate – it’s not an attack on the comrades’ integrity, or as the CC argued in their statement, about questioning the comrades’ ability to apply our politics on women’s oppresion. (inaudible)

I believe the nature of the investigation was fundamentally flawed. The accused was able to see my evidence four days in advance of any questioning to prepare his defence. I was not made aware of the evidence the accused brought to contradict the case, so I had no opportunity to challenge his testimony. I was still denied the right to even basic details of his response – whether he’s denied it ever happened, given a different version of events. None of my witnesses were called. I was never cross-questioned following the accused’s evidence.

Obviously there are instances where people may come forward with malicious intent, so it’s right to investigate claims. However in our tradition we argue that women do not come forward lightly in cases like these. We should start from that belief and attempt to substantiate the woman’s complaint. U don’t believe that the DC in my case shows this to have happened.

Finally – (voice breaks) in my opinion the worst part was the nature of some of the questioning. I was asked if it was fair to say I liked to have a drink. That’s all I need to say on the matter.
Just very quickly, I’m running out of time, but I just wanted to address – because the question of my job has been raised by the factions, to avoid any confusion, I wanted to address this. It is true that I did initially resign. (inaudible) Charlie rightly refused to accept my resignation on the basis that I shouldn’t be punished for bringing forward a complaint. Within days of the hearing I asked to be allowed to return to work, but in many meetings and appeals to the central committee I was repeatedly told that I’d disrupt the harmony of the office.

The worst part and the most stressful part of this is the motivations that have been ascribed to people coming forward. We’ve had accusations of the state – (Karen calls time)
(Applause)

KAREN: The next speaker is Charlie K.

CHARLIE K: Comrades, I want to talk about the method that has guided us through what was inevitably going to be an extremely difficult process. It is that we were never going to hear, in front of the whole of the party, the evidence involved in this case. To preserve anonymity, to protect the individuals involved, the party has developed a method which involves a group of comrades on the disputes committee going away and looking at all the evidence involved in a case. That’s an incredibly onerous responsibility, and it’s one you should take very seriously yourselves as a conference when you elect people to these positions.

Because they take on – you voluntarily cede your right to look at all the evidence, and instead cede to those people, we give you this responsiblity. It’s a method of setting up a group independent of the central committee which has been repeatedly agreed inside the party, including at the democracy commission. Does this make them infallible? It does not. It does not. But let me repeat that the only people, the only people that have heard all the evidence in this case are the people on the disputes committee.

Not the bloggers. Not the gossips. Not the people who have attacked anybody else in this case. The only people who have heard it all are the disputes committee.

And therefore for me, it would have to be a very powerful reason to overturn their verdict. And I say – and I share this with you – that I would have argued to support the disputes committee report whatever it had said. If it had called for disciplinary action against Comrade Delta, I would have argued to accept it. If it had argued to expel Comrade Delta, I would have argued to accept it. And I now argue that we should accept the decisions that dispute committee has come up with, because I think to do otherwise is to impose our belief about what we know about the case above the actual evidence which the people heard themselves.

On X’s case, look, it was difficult. X came to me at the end of the process and said that she wanted to resign from her position working full time for the party. I took it upon myself to say it was inappropriate for X to do that. And I met her twice, and twice she told me that she wanted to resign from working for the party. It was stressful, it was difficult, but I continued to argue for her not to do that.

That doesn’t feel to me like the action of someone who is attempting to drive someone out of their position. It doesn’t feel to me like it was the action of someone who was trying to victimise somebody.

Then X said that she agreed about that, but did not feel – and it’s entirely reasonable – did not feel that she could work that she could continue to work in the (removed) department. (Identifying information removed) It was because of that that I tried to find a solution and compromise which has ended up with her working (removed – another party job). Don’t think that it was at all easy, but that doesn’t sound to me like victimisation.
(Muted applause)

KAREN: The next speaker is Pat S.

PAT S: Is this on? (Audience: No.) Is it on? (Audience: No.) (Mic gets fixed)

OK comrades, I want to just say a few things. Hearing this case was the hardest thing that I’ve done in my 38 years in the party. And it was made harder by the fact that, as Candy said at the beginning, we all knew Comrade Delta and we didn’t know W. We all tried to take that into account, and all measures to make things as accommodating as possible for W – I was in regular contact with her, and I’m sorry if she feels in any way that we fell short on doing that, because I really tried to make sure that we didn’t.

At the end of the hearing I ended up in a minority of one. As a result I’ve been the subject of lots of gossip and speculation.

It’s been said that I found Comrade Delta guilty of rape. I didn’t – I agree with the majority on that question absolutely. My disagreement came around the question of sexual harassment, and at the end of the hearing I was very uneasy about that question.

After X came forward as a witness, I reached the conclusion that while sexual harassment was still not proven, it was likely that it had occurred. And I also felt that Comrade Delta’s conduct fell short of that that one should expect of a CC member.

As a result of this, I had stories put around that I was part of a plot to ‘get Comrade Delta’. I ask the comrades this – why would I be part of a plot to get Comrade Delta? I’ve known him for years, I consider him a friend, I have enormous respect for what he’s done for the party, and any time we have been on a different side of arguments, there has been no rancorous feeling between us.

I am also not part of a feminist faction, a democracy faction or indeed any faction. The idea that Bambery or Counterfire would get hold of any information about this case is something that fills me with horror. I did not automatically believe the woman involved, any more than I automatically believed the CC member. I tried honestly and even-handedly to follow the evidence to a conclusion.

Since that time – and the conclusion was the one I’ve said – since that time I have had concerned. I was shocked at comrades who have not heard the evidence going round branding Comrade Delta a rapist. I think that is shocking.

I was equally shocked though when longstanding comrades, who really should have known better and knew nothing of the case, assigned motives to the two women who came forward which the disputes committee never assigned to them – indeed, which we explicitly rejected. I would say to the comrades who do that, that there are lessons that must be learned for the future, and one of them must be that any woman within the party has the right to come forward without their motives being speculated on by people who have no idea about the incident (inaudible as talks over applause).

This case was difficult for everybody, but at the end of the day, I could not do any other than stand by the conclusions I had reached, in fairness to all the parties concerned.
(Applause)

KAREN: The next speaker is Regi P.

REGI P: I just want to start off by saying that I do thank Candy and the disputes committee. (inaudible) I actually feel a bit more reassured. (inaudible) Over the past few months it’s been very very hard, we’ve had all sorts of rumours, all sorts of horrible things and it’s been really really dofficult to know what to do about it. It’s been difficult to respond and to go forward and talk to people who are coming up to us saying I’ve heard this, I’ve heard this, blah blah blah. It’s been a difficult time.

But I think it is important that we go back to how we got this disputes committee. Because we could going round and round in circles over lots of different things. (inaudible)

I was a delegate to last year’s conference, and I voted for the disputes committee. And I voted for them because I think these people are best placed to deal with these difficult questions. I would never want to hear any of these things, and I think it’s a very difficult thing they have to do. I voted for them because I trust that any case that comes up against them, they will deal with it with the utmost scrunity, regardless of any person’s long standing in the party, whatever they have done. (inaudible) What it actually means is if they are a CC member, we need to deal with it with the utmost scrutiny. We need to deal with it with the highest standards of the party. And I believe that this disputes committee has been able to hold each case to the highest standards.

I came here today to listen with an open mind, listen to the debates, listen to – I knew there were going to be oppositions. I have come to listen to both sides, then make up my mind, then vote and move forward. And what I’ve heard from the people who were there in the disputes committee is that they did try to deal with this as sensitively as possible, because we know, from our perspective we know that the bourgeois courts deal with these cases in horrible ways.

They changed the process in order to support her. They spent an extra large amount of time looking at this case. They treated it in a very broad way – they didn’t just look at one allegation. And I genuinely feel, from this hall, that I can say I believe this very very serious allegation has been dealt with with a very serious method. I feel a sense of relief actually, that I do feel reassured by this report. And I think the party has actually held up this case to its highest levels. (inaudible)

(Some applause)
KAREN: Thank you. The next speaker will be Sara B.

SARA B: Comrades, we have to welcome the fact that we have a disputes committee. We have no faith in the bourgeois court system to deliver justice. (inaudible) The contribution I’m about to make is in no way to undermine the fact that we have a disputes committee – that is the right way to go.

However, I think the fact that we’re having this debate, that there is a challenge, that we’ve heard today that the crux of the differences on the central committee come down to this report, that we’ve just heard Pat S’s view on the report and we’ve heard from one of the people who gave evidence as well – something has gone somewhat awry with this case, and I think it is our duty to look into it and come to a conclusion about our attitude to whether the report should be accepted or rejected.

Now some of the things that come out of this have been arguments that anyone who wants to challenge or disagrees with the outcome is either a feminist or it’s moralism. I just want to deal quickly with this. It’s nothing to do with feminism – I think that’s been dealt with actually. But I’ll talk about the question of moralism, and bourgeois morality – that somehow we’ve got something against people of different ages having relationships with each other, or it isn’t acceptable that people might be conducting affairs. This has got nothing to do with it comrades.
That doesn’t mean we don’t have morality inside the SWP. It’s not a case of ‘anything goes’. When Candy says that they wanted to make sure that the conduct of comrades didn’t fall below standards, I have to go further. It’s not just about falling below standatds that might be set down by society. Our standards have to be watertight, they have to be the highest of the highest standards, especially for our leading comrades who are leading who are leading in the class and in united fronts. We’ve got to be like Teflon – non-stick. (Applause)

We have to make sure that the answer we get is absolutely crystal clear. I do have a problem though about the procedure. What we’ve heard up to now – and it’s right that this should be debated at conference – is that we must defend the procedure, we must trust in those who are on the disputes committee. I’ve nothing against the integrity of the people on the disputes committee, or the fact that we have one.

But at the end of the day for me what counts is that the procedure should lead to an outcome that clarifies the situation, that gives us guidance and makes us feel confident, internally within our organisation and externally to the outside world, that we have done the right thing. And comrades, I don’t think we can wholeheartedly say that, and that in itself I think needs to be the reason why we reject the report in this instance, because I don’t think – actually, I agree with Charlie that we’re not infallible – I don’t think we must trust in the disputes committee because we must. That’s a cyclical argument.

We trust in the disputes committee because they deliver (inaudible) over key issues. I don’t think that’s been the case. The argument for rejection of the report is in this instance, not to re-open the case but to admit there is not the clarity we require, and to look for further improvements in the future to make sure that in the future the same mistakes aren’t repeated again.
(Applause)

KAREN: The next speaker is Esme C. While she’s getting up, we have a question: ‘Is there a political reason why, if conflicting accounts were given, the women were not believed?’

ESME C: The first thing I want to clear up is that if – well, we know the complainant is very distressed both by the outcome and by how she feels things have progressed since the hearing. Nobody on the disputes committee would want to cause stress to that woman or to the people around her.

I was one of the central committee members who was seconded to sit on the disputes committee, and none of us support the slander that has been put either about the claimant or about the people who supported the claimant, or the labels that have been attached to them. We believe that every comrade who has been involved in this process has the right to be treated with the dignity and respect that is befitting of our party’s ability to investigate very difficult and trying cases that are brought before us.

The second thing is I want to clear up something that X raised. X raised with us, why when she came to us with her evidence was she not allowed to bring witnesses, not allowed to have Comrade Delta’s testimony relayed back to her? The reason for that is that we’d asked her whether she wanted to make a formal complaint, and we’d made it clear to her that she had every right to do so. And at that point in time she did not want to make a formal complaint. Therefore we only listened to her testimony in regard to whether it changed our point of view on the original investigation.

We made it clear to her then, as we do now, that she still has every right to put in a formal complaint against Comrade Delta that will be heard formally by the disputes committee with witnesses on both sides, and with the chance for both sides to go through the formal process of scrutiny that happened in the first case that we heard.

That’s why that happened. It wasn’t an attempt to deny justice, it was an attempt to hear from somebody brought in after we’d heard the case some evidence that she thought we ought to hear, but who did not at that time want to make a formal complaint (inaudible).

The next thing I want to clear up really is about the inappropriate questioning. Because, you see, as Candy mentioned at the beginning, firstly many of the rumours about things we might or might not have asked are greatly untrue. Comrades know here that we should not listen to lies and rumours about what has or hasn’t been said. The second thing is that the questions that we did ask – and it was raised by somebody else, not myself and not the disputes committee, that we raised a question about the comrade’s sexual history. We asked one question that was related to the testimony brought to us by the complainant.

We didn’t introduce new material into that. We asked her about what she’d brought to us because she thought it was relevant to our investigation of what had happened. We asked a question about that, she told us the answer to that, and we accepted the answer that she had told us. So we weren’t asking inappropriate questions, we were trying to do the job that comrades had asked us to do, which is people make a complaint of rape comrades, I’m afraid we have to investigate that complaint. And we have to ask, within the remit of what we think is responsible questions – we have to be able to ask people about the evidence they give us.

I’m very sorry for the distress that that’s caused, but we have to be able to scrutinise -

KAREN: Wind up.

ESME: – the questions that people bring to us in a thorough way so we can report back to and be accountable in front of the party.
(Scattered applause)

KAREN: The next speaker is Gill G.

GILL G: OK, comrades – the theme for the last two days has been that we have to stop talking about this internal shit and build the class struggle. Absolutely right. But you know what? Sometimes you can’t move on unless you deal with something.

And the issue that we’re talking about this evening – this issue has been simmering away in the party for two years. It’s now part of a huge row that has been taking place over the past two or three months.

This is the reason the CC is split. This is why four young comrades have found themselves out of the party. This is why at this conference we’ve seen one group of comrades urged to view another group of comrades as the enemy. This is damaging.

And much of this contribution is addressed to the CC actually, because all of you – whichever side of the split – all of you are immensely capable. I hope that conference will vote to reject this disputes committee report, and will do that as an acknowledgment that there’s a problem, and that we’re going to deal with it. Not to re-open the case, but whatever the vote on the disputes committee, I want the CC to give leadership in a difficult situation.

I want you to take away the proposals that were put to you by thirty members of this organisation that we asked to be distributed, and that was not allowed. I want you to look at those proposals seriously, work together, and come back to this conference tomorrow with a proposed way forward.

Now those proposals – they included some very very basic things. That comrades who bring a complaint of serious sexual misconduct should be supported, should be kept informed and not be questioned on their sexual history. If we cannot agree this comrades, then frankly I despair.

Tbere’s this daft idea that other people have mentioned, that it’s impossible to criticise the disputes committee because it’s an elected body of this organisation, and somehow that will call the whole of our tradition into disrepute. Well that’s nonsense. That’s not political argument, that’s bureaucratic rubbish. Come on, comrades – this is an excellent organisation, but occasionally we make mistakes.

And I’ll tell you what, CC – if we do not deal with this at this conference, this will be on every fucking sectarian blog out there and this party will be dragged through the mud, and it will damage our work in years to come, it will damage our ability to recruit and build.

I’m so proud of this party. We can do so much better than this. But it has to start this evening. I’m moving rejection of the disputes committee report, because this time we’ve made a mistake. We should acknowledge that, we should move on.

The very final point – the complainant asked to be here, she was denied permission to be here. My understanding – I’ve never met her, but my understanding is she will be outside at the end of this session if comrades would like to meet her and discuss what actually happened.
(Applause)

KAREN: The last speaker will be Maxine B.

MAXINE B: The first thing I want to say is that I really feel that, despite what everybody’s said, that really there is a challenge being made to the integrity of the disputes committee.
For myself, I joined the party as a young woman through the question of women’s oppression. I thought the party was the best place to be, not just in terms of the theory but in terms of the way in which we act, our practice. And I really reject the idea that there has been some kind of cover up that has taken place, or the idea that the decision was made because Comrade Delta was on the central committee.

Now I think a lot of you in this room, maybe not some of the newer members, will know that two years ago it was Sheffield district and myself who wrote the article that went into the internal bulletin that attacked John Rees for his role, who was a leading central committee member. I tell you, to me I do not care if you’re on the central committee or what position you have in the party. If Comrade Delta had been found guilty, if we believed in any way he had done any of these things, I personally would have not only asked for him to be removed from the CC, I would have asked for him to be expelled from the party. I tell you, we did not.

The reason I say this really is that despite everything everybody has said who’s come up to oppose it, we are the only people who sat and listened for day in and day out to the evidence from both sides. I tell you, it’s not good enough to say that if a woman makes a complaint, then she is right. We have to be able to listen to the evidence that is there, and that is precisely what we did.

Now Pat didn’t, in the end, sign up to the statement. But I tell you, all five women, who have long term experience of dealing with questions around women’s oppression, did sign up to it, because we believed that he was not guilty. I tell you, it was a very very sad case that we had innuendos, that this has been pulled into factional activity as well, and I think that all of that is really to the detriment of the possibility of anybody getting justice inside this organisation. Because people have tittle-tattled all sorts of lies and innuendos across the party and made this into a highly factional issue. I think that this is completely and utterly wrong.

I had to bite my lip for the last three months while I listened to the stuff that has been said about this case, and I tell you, they were not true. To be honest, some of the things that have been said up here are not true.

But I believe that people have the right to confidentiality. And I do not see anybody else coming forward with any alternative to the way we did it. We gave W absolute respect. I urge you to vote for this report that we’ve made, and to be honest, nobody else has come forward to stand for the disputes committee. I do not know, if people are so angry about the way in which the disputes committee have dealt with this then really they should have come forward with an alternative slate.
(Applause)

KAREN: Comrades, I’m going to ask Candy to respond to the debate.

(From floor: Point of order! Point of order!)

KAREN: If you want to make a point of order then you need to go to the standing orders committee. (Waits) It’s about whether we should have additional speakers. We haven’t got time. (inaudible) I think we should continue, so Candy can you sum up.

CANDY: Comrades, I think the first thing to say is that we completely understand that it was an extremely difficult thing to do to come forward. I don’t think anybody would expect that to be any other way. I think that one of the criticisms against us is that we didn’t give W support in this, and I really think that that isn’t true. In fact Sadia said that Pat S had been wonderful in relation to the woman concerned, and Pat is the chair of the disputes committee who dealt with her. So I am absolutely sure that both before and during the process, we did everything we could to support her.

I’m afraid to say there was nothing we could do to make it a situation that wasn’t extremely distressing for her. We were very aware of that, and I think we did everything we could to try to support her.

Now I think it goes without saying that anyone who comes forward shouldn’t be victimised in any way for doing that. And I also, personally, believe that if anybody who has come forward in this way is accused in any way of having political motivations – whether it’s that they’re part of a grudge against Comrade Delta, or feminism, or a different view of women’s liberation – I personally believe that that is disgraceful and that kind of discussion shouldn’t be taking place.

But I’m here to tell you what the disputes committee did, and in terms of the disputes committee, we explicitly discussed whether those issues were relevant, and explicitly decided that they weren’t. We were here to listen to what was said to us.

In terms of whether people saw Comrade Delta’s evidence, he didn’t actually provide evidence in advance and that’s why they didn’t, why W didn’t see it.

In terms of who was on the panel – I mean, I explained that we were conscious of the fact that we knew Comrade Delta. To be honest comrades, I don’t believe you could have another panel of people who didn’t know Comrade Delta better than they knew that woman. And so that was a problem that we had to try to consciously overcome.

In terms of the questions that we asked – I can’t come back and answer some of the things that have been raised because I’m not going to go into the details. I can only assure you that we asked the questions that we did because we felt that we had to ask them to try to establish the issues that we were grappling with. (Karen talks over)

Sorry Karen, but just very quickly.

KAREN: You need to stop.

CANDY: OK. All I can do is just assure you that we looked at Comrade Delta’s role as a CC member, we took very seriously the high standard of behaviour, and we did everything we could to listen to the evidence and to come to the conclusions that we did. If we thought that -

KAREN: Stop.

CANDY: OK.
(Smattering of applause)

KAREN: We are now going to take a vote on this matter. People need their voting cards in order to vote. The vote is on whether to accept or reject the disputes committee report that has been presented to you today. (Repeats this louder.) Could I see those in favour of accepting the report as presented to you today.

(Votes are counted)

KAREN: Can I see those against, please?

(Votes are counted)

KAREN: The report’s been accepted. There were 231 votes for accepting, 209 votes to reject and 18 absentions.

Today’s report in the Observer concerning the scandalous failure of care at the Surgicare centre in Hertfordshire, run by the services group Carillion, makes somber reading. Three deaths of patients who had been admitted for routine treatment prompted an independent report before Christmas, as the Observer recounts:

the report also contained the admission that nurses dealing with the case at the privately run centre had needed a ventilator at 8.30am the day before the patient died, but “no machine was available”. That admission, along with the report’s further revelation that clinical medical records are missing and that the resident medical officer at the Surgicentre did not ask for a more senior doctor to attend to Ms Mansi as her health deteriorated, has provoked her brother, Michael, to demand the closure of the centre, which has been at the centre of a series of scandals over the past year.

The Carillion run unit had already been investigated over potential failings in the cases of six patients who suffered irreversible sight loss after treatment. There have been 21 serious clinical and patient information incidents since the clinic opened in September 2011. The clinic also lost the records of 8,500 ophthalmology outpatients last year, prompting local MP Stephen McPartland to back calls for Carillion to lose its licence.

Carillion is a giant company, with annual revenue of around £5 billion, employing about 45000 people around the globe. Significantly, it earns millions of pounds from offering facilities management services within the UK public sector.

The latest scandal must raise questions about Carillion’s low standards of corporate governance, mired as the company is in controversy about unlawful shakedowns and extortion from low paid Asian workers at a Swindon hospital, which has been obscured by years of cover ups, and now by victimization of the whistle-blowers who reported the scandal to management. The allegations of extortion by supervisors were known to Carillion management as long ago as 2007, and at Director level as long ago as 2009, but no effective investigation was undertaken and no action to protect the staff until the workers commenced strike action, in February 2012.

A company with strong ethical values, and a robust culture of effective management would have acted swiftly to identify the truth behind allegations of extortion by white supervisors from Asian staff. Instead Carillion conducted farcically flawed investigations in Swindon, where the victimized staff were too intimidated to give evidence, and where Carillion seemed to operate on the assumption that their white supervisors were inherently more truthful than their Asian staff. Anti-corruption recommendations made in 2010 were simply ignored by local management, who Carillion now acknowledge failed to implement them. Following support from the GMB union, ten members of staff finally did give evidence that they had been forced to give gold and other goods to their supervisors to secure their holiday approvals, shift changes and other work rights they were entitled to. In seeming contravention of the Public Interest Disclosure Act, Carillion has disciplined the whistle blowers; and Carillion further admitted to the Bristol Employment Tribunal in December that no disciplinary sanction has yet been issued to any supervisor.

It doesn’t even end there. Carillion has been up to its neck in the civil liberties scandal of blacklisting, where an unlawful register was maintained on behalf of construction companies, to share information with the aim of preventing workers who the companies disapproved of from gaining employment.

The Blacklist Support Group, run to help workers whose lives have been blighted by this scandal, report that the Information Commissioners Office specifically identified both Tarmac and Carillion as being subscribers to the Consulting Association, the organization that administered the unlawful blacklist. Carillion came into being after the demerger of Tarmac in 1999. Prior to this date Tarmac was a major subscriber to the Consulting Association blacklist. After 1999, Carillion carried on the same operations.

The Information Commissioners Office has also now released hundreds of pages of un-redacted blacklist files which highlight the role played by Carillion and a number of their subsidiaries in blacklisting. Crown House is only one of those firms identified. Schal International and SkyBlue Employment Agency (both wholly owned subsidiaries of Carillion) are also specifically identified in the blacklist files. John Mowlem Ltd – now trading as Carillion (JM) Ltd is also identified. So far there is evidence that 224 workers were blacklisted by Carillion.

The Consulting Association sales book, records and invoices show that Carillion itself was charged subscription fees, additional fees for checking names and charges for attending Consulting Association meetings between 1999 (when Carillion was set up) and 2008 (a few weeks before the Consulting Association was closed down). Between 1999 and 2006 alone, Carillion paid the Consulting Association £32,182.74 + VAT This is one of the highest amounts charged to any of the subscribing companies. Prior to 1999, Tarmac was being invoiced for these services. John Mowlem Limited now trading as Carillion (JM) Limited had a separate set of invoices and salesbook records.

Carillion was charged for attending numerous Consulting Association meetings in Scotland, the North West, London and the South East region and Woodstock throughout this period. Senior managers employed directly by Carillion were attending Consulting Association meetings as late as 2008.

The unredacted blacklist files and financial documents on many occasions identify the name or provide the initials of the senior managers who passed on information to the blacklist. This information supplied by Carillion continued to be used for blacklisting up until 2009.

For example, identified as the “Main Contact” for Carillion is LK – (Carillion’s HR Director, Liz Keates); also mentioned is JB – John Ball – Head of Human Resources at Carillion in 1999. John Blake a current senior manager for Carillion admitted collating information that appeared on a blacklist file and sending it to John Ball at Carillion Head Office whilst giving evidence during the Smith v Carillion Employment Tribunal in January 2012.

These claims about Carillion’s role in blacklisting have been put forward on numerous occasions in undisputed written witness statements and oral evidence at various Employment Tribunals. Much of the information was first exposed on Alan Wainwright’s online blog (ex-Director of Industrial Relations for Carillion who became a whistleblower)
If any of these facts were incorrect, Carillion have had every opportunity to refute them in court but have always declined to do so.

Yet, Carillion’s CEO, Richard Howson, now denies that Carillion have at any time participated in blacklisting of trade union members. In an attempt to protect the Carillion brand, he claims that the only part of the Carillion empire ever to have used the Consulting Association was a subsidiary called Crown House and that ended in 2004.

It seems to be further evidence of poor corporate governance that the CEO of the organization denies facts which Carillion has not sought to refute at Employment Tribunals, and some of which Carillion managers have themselves admitted in testimony. This suggests that Mr Howson should better inform himself before making public statements on blacklisting.

Carillion is a very major player in providing public services, running schools, hospitals, and council services paid for out of the public purse. For example its recent bid to run education services in Stafford would have been worth at least £700 million, and could have been worth £5bn over the project life. During the course of that bid, a senior officer from Stafford Council who had been involved in early stages of the procurement resigned from the council and took up employment with Carillion.

Hull City Council recently voted unanimously to review their procurement processes, to seek to exclude companies involved in the scandal of unlawful blacklisting. It is high time that private companies making profits from public services recognize that they need to match up to the ethical standards that the public expects.