Skeptic
Skeptic

January 21st, 2011, 2:41 pm #51

So, are you saying that Ian Farrell's report in the 11.6.98 Weekly Worker was wrong or misinformed? A reminder, this said "at the May (98) meeting of the CPB executive committee four EC members were suspended - Mary Rosser, George Wake, Francis Wilcox and Peter Ritman. Their CPB membership will be reviewed at the mid-July EC meeting."

Suspension sounds awfully like disciplinary action to me and is usually the first step towards outright expulsion. Not surprising if comrades chose to walk rather than be pushed. And not unreasonable to interpret as "forced out".
Quote
Share

Eye witness
Eye witness

January 21st, 2011, 10:08 pm #52

Skeptic, I'm afraid I don't have all the relevant info easily to hand - but I will do my best to respond to your questions asap.
In the meantime, I would point out that Wake was not a member of the CPB executive at that time, or any other.
That "Ian Farrell" (who was he? where is he now - receiving an MI5 pension?) could state it as fact just shows how happy the Weekly Worker have always been to lie about the CPB. The rag once invented an entire CPB executive committee meeting, reporting how Nick Wright had proposed a resolution smashing the Griffiths-Haylett clique etc., scoring a famous victory for the Straight Left faction. There was only only one problem with the full-page report of this historic clash of the titans: Nick Wright didn't get elected to the executive until a few years later - and the (inaccurately summarised) motion had been successfully proposed by ... Griffiths himself!
In any event, even three EC members being "forced out" still falls a long way short of "almost 50%" (Mike Hicks). We're not even one-quarter of the way there.
Quote
Share

John Chamberain
John Chamberain

January 22nd, 2011, 10:47 pm #53

Perhaps "Sceptic" is not the pro-Hicks stooge some have assumed.

By relying on the Farrell quote (Ian Donovan the ex-spart, ex-ex, former ex, ex-former, etc), which has been pointed out is entirely inaccurate, this would suggest that the author was not therefore part of the ex-Rosser-Hicks group.

No one in their right mind would refer to a WW report as an authority unless they accepted it as genuine.

My guess therefore is a fake return by someone from the fake "CPGB" probably Lyndon Whyte.

He was a contributor before then went silent after the WW's continual lies were challenged. My guess is he, or one of his few comrades, is back. This would also explain the Weekly Worker's recent coverage on the CPB quoting extensively from this site. It also proves the distance of the "Provisional CPGB" from the actual left.

Lyndon, come out, come out, wherever you are!

Why are you so afraid?
Quote
Share

Annoyed CPBer
Annoyed CPBer

January 23rd, 2011, 12:19 pm #54

I do question whether the people who write as supposed CPB supporters arent themselves indulging in a campaign to make us look stupid.

I find it hard to understand what the relevance of this grabage is. Who cares about the WW and who wrote what? I stopped reading it years ago. It's shit and no one sane should worry about it.

I also forgot about Mike Hicks a long time ago. Rather than wasting time on all this crap, comrades should get on with building the anti-cuts campaigns and build the party!
Quote
Share

Morning Star supporter
Morning Star supporter

January 24th, 2011, 10:52 am #55

Well said. There is more to life than internet gossip.
Quote
Share

Skeptic
Skeptic

January 24th, 2011, 12:45 pm #56

Perhaps "Sceptic" is not the pro-Hicks stooge some have assumed.

By relying on the Farrell quote (Ian Donovan the ex-spart, ex-ex, former ex, ex-former, etc), which has been pointed out is entirely inaccurate, this would suggest that the author was not therefore part of the ex-Rosser-Hicks group.

No one in their right mind would refer to a WW report as an authority unless they accepted it as genuine.

My guess therefore is a fake return by someone from the fake "CPGB" probably Lyndon Whyte.

He was a contributor before then went silent after the WW's continual lies were challenged. My guess is he, or one of his few comrades, is back. This would also explain the Weekly Worker's recent coverage on the CPB quoting extensively from this site. It also proves the distance of the "Provisional CPGB" from the actual left.

Lyndon, come out, come out, wherever you are!

Why are you so afraid?
No, I am not. I am not a member of any political party or group. I was genuinely curious as to why Mike Hicks could assert that "nearly half of the CPB EC were forced out" after his dismissal as General Secretary, if that was untrue, as Eye Witness claims. I quoted the Weekly Worker article because it was very precise and exact in its assertion that four named EC members were suspended at the May EC, in contrast to most of its coverage of the CPB, which appears to use speculation and guess work, as a substitute for analysis.

It also seems the case that a lot of the Weekly Workers past coverage of the CPB has been fed by some leading CPB members, either at EC level, or at least people attending Congress, so it is a bit rich for CPB members to then complain about exaggerated and journalistic reporting of the CPBs internal workings and machinations.

Contrary to Eye Witness and Robert Griffiths' assertions, that either no-one or one EC member was "forced out", it does appear, that following the change in CPB leadership and direction in 1998, a number of the Hicks-Rosser group were suspended, and then they and then others left before they were formally expelled. This does sound like "forced out" to me.

Also, Noreen Branson helpfully points to the conduct and behaviour of "unpleasant and boorish" figures in the new leadership who effectively made it difficult or impossible for people to stay in the CPB.

I conclude Mike Hicks was largely right in his assertion that a significant number of the former CPB leadership were effectively forced out of CPB membership.
Quote
Share

Eye witness
Eye witness

January 30th, 2011, 2:12 pm #57

Skeptic declares:

"I conclude Mike Hicks was largely right in his assertion that a significant number of the former CPB leadership were effectively forced out of CPB membership."

On what is your conclusion based? An assertion by Mike Hicks - whose lies led to his removal as General Secretary and to the overwhelming defeat of his faction at the 1990 Morning Star AGM meetings. And an article in the anti-CPB Weekly Worker, whose record for truthfulness is, er, a little shaky.

Can you tell us 1) exactly who was forced out of the CPB Executive; 2) what number constitutes "almost 50%" (M. Hicks) of an Executive of 30; and 3) how close the number of named individuals in 1) comes to the number calculated in 2).

Otherwise, all we have is an empty assertion with no facts to back it up.
Quote
Share

Skeptic
Skeptic

January 30th, 2011, 8:56 pm #58

Using Eye Witness' own head count, 9 members of the EC elected at the 1997 Congress were no longer members of the CPB by 1999, following the change in leadership and direction represented by the replacement of Mike Hicks by Griffiths.

That by any definition is a large number and a large proportion of the previous leadership.

Whether those EC members were formally expelled, suspended and left before they were expelled, left before they could either be suspended or expelled, or were frozen or hounded out by the sectarian new leadership, is frankly immaterial.

A large proportion of the 1997 EC were indeed "forced out" of CPB membership.

Eye Witness claiming "one" and Griffiths claiming "no-one" was "forced out" are contradicted by the facts and the evidence, and it appears they are the ones with an uneasy relationship with the truth.

Both are trying to cover up the change in politics, direction and approach in the CPB which happened after 1998. To effect that change, they had to "force out" of the CPB many of those who played a leading role in its re-establishment in 1988, and who had saved the Communist Party in Britain.
Quote
Share

Eye witness
Eye witness

January 30th, 2011, 10:38 pm #59

Skeptic declares:

"I conclude Mike Hicks was largely right in his assertion that a significant number of the former CPB leadership were effectively forced out of CPB membership."

On what is your conclusion based? An assertion by Mike Hicks - whose lies led to his removal as General Secretary and to the overwhelming defeat of his faction at the 1990 Morning Star AGM meetings. And an article in the anti-CPB Weekly Worker, whose record for truthfulness is, er, a little shaky.

Can you tell us 1) exactly who was forced out of the CPB Executive; 2) what number constitutes "almost 50%" (M. Hicks) of an Executive of 30; and 3) how close the number of named individuals in 1) comes to the number calculated in 2).

Otherwise, all we have is an empty assertion with no facts to back it up.
1990 should, of course, read 1998.
Names, facts, evidence please, "convinced" unbiased seeker-after-truth Skeptic.
Quote
Share

Skeptic
Skeptic

February 3rd, 2011, 9:28 am #60

I set out the arguments in my previous posts. The "facts" were based on Eye Witness' own head count of who in the 1997 EC subsequently left the CPB! Eye Witness previously claimed in contrast to Mike Hicks that only one 1997 EC member was forced out of CPB membership! Robert Griffiths said in the Morning Star that "no-one" was forced out of CPB membership!

Eye Witness him/herself shows that 9 of the 1997 EC left CPB membership! Plus other leading founders of the CPB, including Tony Chater, Ron and Joan Bellamy.

All as a direct consequence of the new leadership around Robert Griffiths coming to power during 1998.

Eye Witness has not denied the "facts" in the Weekly Worker report that four named EC members were suspended from membership in May 1998. It is hardly surprising that they and others chose to walk before being formally thrown out, or subsequently hounded out of membership.

Hicks probably overstated the "facts" in saying "nearly half" of the EC were "forced out". But it seems clear nearly a third were, plus a number of other former leading members of the EC.

It seems fairly evident whose statements are closer to the truth - Mike Hicks, or Eye Witness and Griffiths.
Quote
Share