Let’s see if I can address your comment: How should The SWP loyalists fight the witch-hunt Part II/#comment-639
Firstly, you refer to the Socialist Workers Party as “the party we all love”. Did you write this before or after you resigned from the party we all love? I assume it was before. Exactly how much time passed between you expressing your love for the SWP and your resigning from it? A few hours? Less than that?
Secondly, no one with any brains or integrity condemns those accused of a crime as guilty in advance of the evidence being weighed up by a jury of his or her peers, with legal representation for the accused.
No socialist finds someone guilty on the basis of allegations alone. That is a ridiculous point of view. Unfortunately, it is your point of view, Rosa. And it is the point of view of Richard Seymour. It is the point of view of the seventy plus students he dragged out of the SWP into his ludicrous ‘network’, a ‘network’ claiming to defend the very best of the international socialist traditions while, simultaneously, pissing on each and every one of these traditions: the bourgeois nature of the capitalist state; democratic centralism which is a million times more democratic than the contempt for majority votes that characterizes the anarchistic conspirators who make up Richard Seymour’s fan club.
And this anti-democratic perspective of finding the accused guilty in advance of any trial is also the perspective of all those who are leaping aboard Richard Seymour’s witch hunting bandwagon who have never expressed any sympathy for the traditions of international socialism: Laurie Penny, for example.
Rosa, you pose a very strange question: why the accuser would lie. I don’t know the answer to that. It is the kind of question that a jury would consider if this goes to trial. If you want to go down that avenue, then let me answer your question with one of my own: why did all those women referred to within the last week by Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Stammer who went to jail for making false allegations of rape make them up? I suspect there were many different reasons.
When it comes to allegations against a left wing activist, then the possibility of a honey trap obviously springs to mind. That doesn’t mean that this is the reason. False allegations are made for other reasons. Nor does the credible possibility of a honey trap prove that the allegation is in fact false. It may be true. That, once again, would be for a jury to decide.
For the benefit of the hard of thinking, I am not going to pronounce on cases where I do not have an intimate knowledge of the evidence for or against. I confess that I have not gone out of my way to familiarize myself with what passes for ‘evidence’ in this so-called case. To do that would be to indulge myself in a game of trial by media. And I utterly deplore that.
I deplore trial by media when performed by Rupert Murdoch’s gutter press. I deplore it every bit as much when this sewer has been prised open by John Chamberlain’s pro-pedophilia group, or the apologists for pedophile priests and those who systematically cover-up for them on the nasty blog of Andy Newman, Tony Collins and Phil Burton-Cartledge. I deplore this trial by media when carried out by Richard Seymour.
Every single one of these advocates of trial by media are beneath contempt in the eyes of every socialist. Every single one of them has, by the way, opened themselves up to legal action for libel and slander.
Have a nice day, ‘comrades’.