We have moved to a new address, please go to SOCIALISTUNITY.COM
Absolutely pathetic, have you got nothing better to do than smear socialists and their families? And to compare the Sheridans to the Archers is beneath contempt, even by the standards of this blog. Funny kind of socialists in 'Socialist Unity', taking the side of the State and the Murdoch gutter press against a long-standing and principled fighter for the working class.
Well Jim, Sheridan betrayed the class. He decided to pursue a court case which amounted to double standards, appalling treatment of women and bizarrely for a socialist to uphold bourgeois morality. And he dragged a lot of other people and a party in to the mire. He sabotaged the SSP at a time when the Scottish LP was collapsing and gains could have been won at the May election.That behaviour does not show in any shape or form a committed principled socialist fighting the class struggle. it shows someone thinking of their own interests.
taking the side of the State and the Murdoch gutter press against a long-standing and principled fighter for the working classJim: why did he sue? Any principled socialist would shrug off the NotW story if it was true, and laugh it off if it was false. Even if the truth were all on his side, Sheridan's action in taking on the Murdoch press and demanding that the SSP fall in behind him would be the act of a self-centred egotist, not a socialist. The best he could achieve would be to divert attention from the great achievements of the SSP under his leadership, and onto the personal working-class heroism of Mr and Mrs Sheridan. And if, as seems highly likely at this juncture, the truth wasn't on Sheridan's side... words fail me.
It's not 'Socialist Unity' to give any credence to the state's attempts to prosecute Tommy Sheridan, his wife, or anyone else in the SSP.Don't engage in gossip and smears.
"now the "fragrant" Mrs Gail Sheridan"So Andy, it seems you have nothing better to do that publish sexist crap.Shame on you.
Well anonymous person. You will note firstly that this is a colective blog and that i dodn't even write this.Secondly, it is not sexist at all.Gail Sheridan has colluded along with Tommy in presenting a media image of a "perfect family", leading a life of conventional respectability. This illusion of happy family life is an unattainable and even undesirable fiction for the majority of working class people, and the Sheridan's deceit in promoting it is a political return to the hypocritical Victorian values of Thatcherism.Gail Sheridan made a political choice to present herself as the loyal and loving wife of the upstanding monogamous Tommy.We all know it is a fiction, a fiction that both Sheridans were prepared to derail the socialist project in Scotland to promote.The reference to fragrance, as you well know, is a comparison to Mary Archer and the political and cultural parallels between Mary Archer and Gail Sheridan are a legitimate area of comment for socialists.Of coourse there are differences between Tommy Sheridan and Jeffrey Archer: Archer writes his own books for one thing.
Anon: I wrote it and other comrades do post on this blog as AN pointed out it is a collective blog! (if you look at the bottom of the piece you will see "posted by"... Louisefeminista). Ok, that's been sorted. The next thing..The only thing I will say is that the fragrant Mrs S. gives a whole new meaning to Tammy Wynette's Stand By your Man...Sexist? You must be having a laugh. She is not beyond criticism and she obv. supported him ripping those women to shreds in court. Sisterhood? Do me a favour, Mrs S. sold them out.Oh, are you part of the anonymous collective? It is sure great to hide behind it...
If you have political disagreements with her, make a political point. The use of the term "fragrant" is sexist. Pure and simple.What part of the term "sexist" do you not understand?
I take it Louisefeminista is the name your parents gave you. Feminista, err that's a Yorkshire name is it?If it isn't then use you real name or shut up about people making comments under "anon".
Explain why it is sexist. Cleraly we don't think it is, so you just asserting it is not realy an argument, is it.And I realy don't like debating with people who post as anonymous, it is just bad ettiquette on your part, as we cannot distinquish you from all the other anonymous commenters.Why not use a pseudonym, or just sign the post?
anonymousPeople uses pseudonyms for al sort of reasns, and given that 2/3 of companies now sya they google job applicants names now - that seems prudent. Personally I use my own name.However, we get a lot of anonymous comments, and it makes debate difficult becasue you can have two anoymous people joing a thread, and it is impossibe to distinguish between themAlso the Avatar that people adopt, with pseudonyms like "Louisefeminsta" have a traceablity and accountability of sorts, as for example you can see her comments and posts on this blog and others, and work out where she is coming from.I notice that people who post as "anonymous" also tend to be less polite, (a category you seem to fit into.)We are intersted here is friendly and fraternal debate, why not join in that spirit?
Hey Anon, I'd take you a lot more seriously if you stopped hiding behind "anon"...Believe me, I understand sexism only perfectly well!!!!!!!!Oh, and to accuse people of sexism is a cheap trick on this occasion as you are trying to stifle debate. "Fragrant Mrs Sheridan" sexist? Get a grip and if that's all the argument you have then you need to have a rethink!!
"Also the Avatar that people adopt, with pseudonyms like "Louisefeminsta" have a traceablity and accountability of sorts, as for example you can see her comments and posts on this blog and others, and work out where she is coming from."I use Louisefeminista 'cos it is originally from an old email account and adopted it as my moniker. It has a ring to it and also a kind of political identity as it connects to my feminism. I like using it (it is not an issue for me to use my real name as I don't have a sensitive job or for other reasons) as opposed to my real name as it reflects who I am to a certain extent.
"I take it Louisefeminista is the name your parents gave you. Feminista, err that's a Yorkshire name is it?If it isn't then use you real name or shut up about people making comments under "anon"."Oh many apols Anon, I have only just seen your recent comment. Yorkshire? Nah, I am from the West Midlands. But maybe I am being unfair and that is indeed you real name, Anonymous. Oh and btw: i do use my real name on many occasions, but Anon, if I used "Jo Butler" as my Moniker how would you know that was real. My "real name" or indeed "Jo Butler" is pretty much arbitrary as it but as AN pointed out, you can trace comments/points by "Louisefeminista" and there is a degree of accountability unlike Anon 'cos which Anon are you. Are you part of the Anon Collective? Really Anon, methinks you should grow-up a bit.
Anonymous;You still haven't given a reason why the use of the word "fragrant" (as against, say "witches", to pick a not-entirely-random example) is sexist.
DELETING TROLLS. At the moment this blog is frozen by the blogger tool, and we are awaiting resolution from the blogger techinical teamBut over the last week since we published an article critical of the SWP's international organisation, we have had a sustained series of comments posted that do not debate the content of the arguments but instead are seeking to divert discussion into the blind alleys of how we on this blog are allegedly backward, sexist, pompous, inward looking. There have also been unfounded accusations of censorship and racism from someone whose source IP address was the SWP's central office in London, but pretending to be posted by someone called Walid from Beirut.Having spent 20 years in the SWP I recognise this as a particular tack to avoid debate my diminishing the status of the oppnent in the debate.Given the current difficulties of the blog, with only the comments boxes open, then I am going to be ruthless in deleting trolls who are not engaging in the substance of the debate, but are just insulting the integrity of other people debating. This is not curtailing substantive debate, and obviously if someone want to answer the point in dipsute about why "fragant" is sexist, but "witches" is not, then please do.
Post a Comment