For those people who may have thought that the SWP no longer bully, disrupt tell lies etc to get their own way.
21 February 2005.
Dear Friends,
Just in case anyone thought that problems created by Luton SWP are matters relating only to past bullying tactics, here’s a quick update on present tactics used by SWP members in Luton in 2005.
The SWP (Silly Wreckers Party) in Luton makes up a tiny minority in Luton Respect, but the way they conduct themselves they give the appearance of being in charge of Luton Respect.
One of the SWP people, who comes from out of town, during Respect meetings insults, shouts at, attacks and tries to get rid of people he doesn’t like – i.e. people who are critical of SWP and their tactics. He has produced minutes of meetings that are libellous and often misses off decisions made that he doesn’t like.
On Thursday 17th February at a Luton Respect meeting the group needed to settle the question of who the Election Agent was to be for Luton Respect. Our election candidate Mobeen Qureshi said that he wanted to select his team with all the members present. He said the person needs to be available to him during the day and evening and that he decides which is the better person to work with. Eric Prendergast (Respect member, actively involved in anti-war work and has a one man business called LocalCheck), lives and works in Luton. Another contender Janet Oryem lives in Luton but works in St Albans. Mobeen said he chose Eric for Election Agent.
This brought a tirade of accusations from the SWP minority towards Eric because they don’t like him. They don’t like the fact he’s a local business person and that he doesn’t take any notice of SWP demands. Mark Smith of St Albans SWP (who appears to have assumed leadership of the Luton Respect) said he disagreed with having an Election Agent who is not a member and at one point was shouting. Discussion of Eric’s membership ensued (see below). (NB there is nothing in law to say that the Election Agent has to be a member, but in this case both contenders, Eric and Janet, are members of Respect).
Mark, Steve Coghlan and Sarah Allen (all SWP) then said they objected to Eric because he had denied permission for display and promotional material at a public meeting (30 January 2005) where George Galloway was the main speaker. (In fact Eric put up numerous Respect posters and stopped non-Respect posters being put up, but allowed promotional material to be distributed and put on the chairs in the audience). Eric had organised the public meeting, he’d booked the Thistle Hotel and made sure it was run on a professional basis. George later remarked that he thought the meeting was “Brilliant!”
Eric was heavily criticised by the SWP faction and they were getting very hot under the collar. Eric had carried out the wishes of a group decision made on 27 January that only Respect material be displayed, so as to remain focused and not confuse the general public. Hafsha Ali (SWP) though felt that it was acceptable in principle to override decisions made at previous meetings (democracy at work?!).
Michael Noble (not SWP) said this was like history repeating itself; like what happened to the Socialist Alliance in Luton, and he made a plea for unity.
Debby Wakeham (not SWP) reminded the group that the decision on Election Agent and Campaign Manager rested with Mobeen (the candidate), as laid down by the Electoral Commission. Mark suggested putting the matter to a vote. Mobeen gave in to Mark’s bullying by saying that there appeared to be two groups and a conflict of opinion, and a vote was then taken - voting was as follows: Janet 5, Eric 3, Abstentions 4 (including Mobeen). Janet was therefore appointed as Election Agent by a minority of the group despite Mobeen having already picked his election agent.
Eric Prendergast a Target of the SWP
Mark Smith had said that ‘Respect HQ has no record of Eric being a member’. This had been reiterated despite Debby having produced at the last meeting a photocopy of his membership form, which had been sent to Head Office. Debby said that Eric had filled in a membership form and given her £10 cash. She had written a personal cheque for £10 for Eric’s membership, which she sent to Head Office with his form on 20 December 2004. Debby had also checked with Ghada at Head Office whether £10 was still acceptable, in light of the increased subscription fee to £26 for 2005, and Ghada had said £10 was acceptable. The cheque had been paid into the Respect bank account, therefore Eric is on record as being a member.
Debby pointed out that she and other members had not yet renewed for 2005 as they joined at different times during last year, so any issues about membership applied to everyone, not just Eric. (Nobody else’s membership was called into question). She also said she was not aware of any instruction from Head Office that everyone had to renew by 1st January 2005 regardless of when they joined. If such a directive were to be issued, people would of course comply immediately – otherwise they will renew when their respective subs became due.
Further, Mark stated that local Respect websites are ‘against the wishes of HQ’. However, I pointed out that, on inspection of Respect Head Office website, Luton Respect website and other local Respect websites are listed. (Go to:
Respect Head Office Home Page → Local Pages → 6. South East Region → Local Area Websites → Oxford Respect, Portsmouth Respect, East Berks. Respect, Milton Keynes Respect, Luton Respect).
Mark has clearly either greatly misunderstood “the wishes of HQ2 or lied. Mark, Steve and Sarah don’t like the Luton Respect website and Mark erroneously stated in a meetings of a previous meeting that HQ had ordered the website be shut down. This is completely untrue.
Frequency/ location of meetings
Debby Wakeham raised the question of frequency of meetings, saying it was difficult for people to attend weekly meetings and that Ghada at Head Office had warned of the risk of burn-out and had also advised that we use weekly meetings to be doing things like leafleting, canvassing, ring-rounds.
Mobeen also felt that few people now attended weekly, with a different few coming each time, and that we should meet fortnightly instead. He suggested that in between times people could meet elsewhere in relevant planning groups (eg for leafleting, canvassing, etc.). Besides, Mobeen said he will need to use the premises in future for purposes other than Respect meetings; there would be new events starting soon. Hafsha Ali said that she used to favour fortnightly meetings but because the election draws near, she now favours weekly. Mark said that if we meet weekly, people will think of us as a serious organisation and that meetings should all be about activities and maximising Mobeen’s vote. Mobeen caved in again in deference to SWP minority wishes and weekly meetings were to continue.
Conclusion
This is a small sample of what we have to put up with in Luton Respect. A small unrepresentative rump (all SWP) have disrupted meetings, put out inaccurate minutes, made libellous remarks and get angry when it looks as though they are not getting their own way.
Mark Smith appears to be the main wrecker. On first meeting Mark I thought he was a trouble maker, subsequent events have confirmed my initial impression.
For instance, he’s successfully delayed our election campaign. At a time after all the other political parties in Luton had launched their election campaigns, Debby Wakeham brought up the subject of canvassing and campaigning for Mobeen, Mark rubbished her suggestion by saying “But the election has not been called yet” – canvassing and campaigning are not happening in Luton, despite George Galloway and other Respect candidates around the country going out on the streets, speaking to the public, shopkeepers and kissing babies etc.
I have looked on the web and read numerous similar stories about SWP wrecking tactics and we in Luton don’t want to be the SWP’s next victims.
We want Unity and for all kinds of people to come together and respect each other’s differences and work together. At this time I and some other Luton Respect members are taking stock and will decide how we can progress Respect in Luton without the bullying and disruptive tactics of the SWP.
Peter George Wakeham
21 February 2005.
Dear Friends,
Just in case anyone thought that problems created by Luton SWP are matters relating only to past bullying tactics, here’s a quick update on present tactics used by SWP members in Luton in 2005.
The SWP (Silly Wreckers Party) in Luton makes up a tiny minority in Luton Respect, but the way they conduct themselves they give the appearance of being in charge of Luton Respect.
One of the SWP people, who comes from out of town, during Respect meetings insults, shouts at, attacks and tries to get rid of people he doesn’t like – i.e. people who are critical of SWP and their tactics. He has produced minutes of meetings that are libellous and often misses off decisions made that he doesn’t like.
On Thursday 17th February at a Luton Respect meeting the group needed to settle the question of who the Election Agent was to be for Luton Respect. Our election candidate Mobeen Qureshi said that he wanted to select his team with all the members present. He said the person needs to be available to him during the day and evening and that he decides which is the better person to work with. Eric Prendergast (Respect member, actively involved in anti-war work and has a one man business called LocalCheck), lives and works in Luton. Another contender Janet Oryem lives in Luton but works in St Albans. Mobeen said he chose Eric for Election Agent.
This brought a tirade of accusations from the SWP minority towards Eric because they don’t like him. They don’t like the fact he’s a local business person and that he doesn’t take any notice of SWP demands. Mark Smith of St Albans SWP (who appears to have assumed leadership of the Luton Respect) said he disagreed with having an Election Agent who is not a member and at one point was shouting. Discussion of Eric’s membership ensued (see below). (NB there is nothing in law to say that the Election Agent has to be a member, but in this case both contenders, Eric and Janet, are members of Respect).
Mark, Steve Coghlan and Sarah Allen (all SWP) then said they objected to Eric because he had denied permission for display and promotional material at a public meeting (30 January 2005) where George Galloway was the main speaker. (In fact Eric put up numerous Respect posters and stopped non-Respect posters being put up, but allowed promotional material to be distributed and put on the chairs in the audience). Eric had organised the public meeting, he’d booked the Thistle Hotel and made sure it was run on a professional basis. George later remarked that he thought the meeting was “Brilliant!”
Eric was heavily criticised by the SWP faction and they were getting very hot under the collar. Eric had carried out the wishes of a group decision made on 27 January that only Respect material be displayed, so as to remain focused and not confuse the general public. Hafsha Ali (SWP) though felt that it was acceptable in principle to override decisions made at previous meetings (democracy at work?!).
Michael Noble (not SWP) said this was like history repeating itself; like what happened to the Socialist Alliance in Luton, and he made a plea for unity.
Debby Wakeham (not SWP) reminded the group that the decision on Election Agent and Campaign Manager rested with Mobeen (the candidate), as laid down by the Electoral Commission. Mark suggested putting the matter to a vote. Mobeen gave in to Mark’s bullying by saying that there appeared to be two groups and a conflict of opinion, and a vote was then taken - voting was as follows: Janet 5, Eric 3, Abstentions 4 (including Mobeen). Janet was therefore appointed as Election Agent by a minority of the group despite Mobeen having already picked his election agent.
Eric Prendergast a Target of the SWP
Mark Smith had said that ‘Respect HQ has no record of Eric being a member’. This had been reiterated despite Debby having produced at the last meeting a photocopy of his membership form, which had been sent to Head Office. Debby said that Eric had filled in a membership form and given her £10 cash. She had written a personal cheque for £10 for Eric’s membership, which she sent to Head Office with his form on 20 December 2004. Debby had also checked with Ghada at Head Office whether £10 was still acceptable, in light of the increased subscription fee to £26 for 2005, and Ghada had said £10 was acceptable. The cheque had been paid into the Respect bank account, therefore Eric is on record as being a member.
Debby pointed out that she and other members had not yet renewed for 2005 as they joined at different times during last year, so any issues about membership applied to everyone, not just Eric. (Nobody else’s membership was called into question). She also said she was not aware of any instruction from Head Office that everyone had to renew by 1st January 2005 regardless of when they joined. If such a directive were to be issued, people would of course comply immediately – otherwise they will renew when their respective subs became due.
Further, Mark stated that local Respect websites are ‘against the wishes of HQ’. However, I pointed out that, on inspection of Respect Head Office website, Luton Respect website and other local Respect websites are listed. (Go to:
Respect Head Office Home Page → Local Pages → 6. South East Region → Local Area Websites → Oxford Respect, Portsmouth Respect, East Berks. Respect, Milton Keynes Respect, Luton Respect).
Mark has clearly either greatly misunderstood “the wishes of HQ2 or lied. Mark, Steve and Sarah don’t like the Luton Respect website and Mark erroneously stated in a meetings of a previous meeting that HQ had ordered the website be shut down. This is completely untrue.
Frequency/ location of meetings
Debby Wakeham raised the question of frequency of meetings, saying it was difficult for people to attend weekly meetings and that Ghada at Head Office had warned of the risk of burn-out and had also advised that we use weekly meetings to be doing things like leafleting, canvassing, ring-rounds.
Mobeen also felt that few people now attended weekly, with a different few coming each time, and that we should meet fortnightly instead. He suggested that in between times people could meet elsewhere in relevant planning groups (eg for leafleting, canvassing, etc.). Besides, Mobeen said he will need to use the premises in future for purposes other than Respect meetings; there would be new events starting soon. Hafsha Ali said that she used to favour fortnightly meetings but because the election draws near, she now favours weekly. Mark said that if we meet weekly, people will think of us as a serious organisation and that meetings should all be about activities and maximising Mobeen’s vote. Mobeen caved in again in deference to SWP minority wishes and weekly meetings were to continue.
Conclusion
This is a small sample of what we have to put up with in Luton Respect. A small unrepresentative rump (all SWP) have disrupted meetings, put out inaccurate minutes, made libellous remarks and get angry when it looks as though they are not getting their own way.
Mark Smith appears to be the main wrecker. On first meeting Mark I thought he was a trouble maker, subsequent events have confirmed my initial impression.
For instance, he’s successfully delayed our election campaign. At a time after all the other political parties in Luton had launched their election campaigns, Debby Wakeham brought up the subject of canvassing and campaigning for Mobeen, Mark rubbished her suggestion by saying “But the election has not been called yet” – canvassing and campaigning are not happening in Luton, despite George Galloway and other Respect candidates around the country going out on the streets, speaking to the public, shopkeepers and kissing babies etc.
I have looked on the web and read numerous similar stories about SWP wrecking tactics and we in Luton don’t want to be the SWP’s next victims.
We want Unity and for all kinds of people to come together and respect each other’s differences and work together. At this time I and some other Luton Respect members are taking stock and will decide how we can progress Respect in Luton without the bullying and disruptive tactics of the SWP.
Peter George Wakeham
21 February 2005.
e-mail:
Homepage:
Comments
Display the following 7 comments