Lively reports from Wednesday’s AGM at Lambeth UNISON LG. It would appear that the usual suspects were defeated by ordinary rank & file Lambeth Unison members. This about their support for a rather daft, emergency motion attacking the national union leadership. This motion was over a UNISON “rule I” (internal discipline) investigation into alleged racism over a leaflet put out by some UNISON members during last years conference. Unlike others I won’t comment directly on the allegation since there is an independent investigation underway.
However, I understand that a majority of Lambeth UNISON were outraged at the motion (especially black members) and also at those that supported it. The motion ended up being referred back to the Black members self organised group. A number of Lambeth UNISON members are also reported to have taken their recycling responsibilities very seriously by ripping up various SWP/United Left leaflets that had happened to be left on seats before the AGM.
I am really encouraged by these reports. UNISON members are standing up for what they believe and not supporting motions that attack their union for investigating their own member’s complaints.
I hope that people don’t mind if I post via “YouTube” the excellent early anti-Nazi video version of the “Lambeth Walk”. And to be absolutely clear, I think this video is an important historical record - only. Enjoy.
Finally, I’ve heard that my election rivals for the UNISON SGE national elections were present at the AGM meeting, I suppose my invite must have been mislaid, lost in the post, eaten by my dog, or lost for some other good reason (hmmm- I haven’t got a dog?).
12 comments:
How appropriate John, that you should rely upon a "big lie" in such a post. Perhaps your informant was not sober, since they seem to have been at a different Lambeth Branch AGM to the one which I - and almost 200 branch members - attended.
I seem to remember that myself and other branch officers proposed - to virtually unanimous support - that the important issues (upon which you won't comment) were referred for further consideration by the Branch Black Workers Group and the Branch Committee.
We invited guest speakers who we thought would have something interesting to say, and as it turns out we were not disappointed.
John
Your comments on the Lambeth AGM were drawn to my attention as i was present as a NEC member.
I have to say what ever political differnces i have with you as a defender of new Labour, for you to stoop to the level of deliberately directly linking the views of members of the Lambeth branch with the Nazi's is a new low even for you.
Members of that branch will no doubt be insulted at such a gross offence.
Glenn Kelly
Hi Jon
Shame about the personal abuse, however, I will assume that you had a “skin full” last night and were feeling a little grumpy this morning (not that you are the egotistic, self important, manipulative hypocrite that many people make you out to be).
I can’t comment about the sobriety or otherwise of the Lambeth comrades who contacted me about the AGM since of course I was not invited!
However, I understand that you actually proposed the motion at the AGM “criticising” the rule I investigation and were torn to pieces by Lambeth Black members led by Khi Rafe over it. Seeing the way things were going you then did one of your famous “back flips” and supported a referral to Black workers group.
Now if my comrades did give me an inaccurate account of the AGM then I would apologise without hesitation to the branch for doing so and remind those comrades to keep off the happy juices during union meetings.
Now to deal with comrade bronstein
Hi Glen
"Your comments on the Lambeth AGM were drawn..."
I find it richly ironic that you of all people are insinuating that I have linked Lambeth branch members with Nazi’s. If you really believed this then as a NEC member (for the moment anyway) then you should indeed make a complaint about me under union rules. Rather than make smearing and groundless allegations simply to score political points.
Bring back SPGB I say – at least they had some integrity.
It certainly looks like the London SGE elections are going to be an "interesting" campaign – can’t wait!
John (Gray)
Thank you for your reply but unfortunately it answers nothing. I raised my concerns in the hope of getting an explanation but clearly not.
I have no problem having sharp political disagreements and I do not simply resort to lodging formal complaints without at least having raised it with the person concerned and seeking an explanation. But since you raise it, I would be interested to see if I or a Lambeth member who you attacked did lodge a complaint whether you would be treated the same way as others in the union.
I again give you the opportunity to explain your stance in this blog.
In comments on the Lambeth AGM (which you were not at) you attack a number of the Lambeth branch members for moving and supporting a motion. I quote
“It would appear that the usual suspects were defeated by ordinary rank & file Lambeth Unison members. This about their support for a rather daft, emergency motion attacking the national union leadership. This motion was over a UNISON “rule I” (internal discipline) investigation into alleged racism over a leaflet put out by some UNISON members during last year’s conference".
In a debate that was about the serious issue of racism you assert “ I understand that a majority of Lambeth UNISON were outraged at the motion (especially black members) and also at those that supported it”. In the context of your attack you then go on to add an utube clip of Hitler and goose-stepping Nazis marching to the tune of the Lambeth walk, Presumably this was done to add, “flavour” to your point. If this is not meant to be an attack on those members moving and supporting the motion what was it? Are you asking us to believe that the video was purely co incidental and has nothing to do with the point you were making or was it a slip of the mouse and return key?
I look forward to your reply
Glenn Kelly
Hi Glen (aka Bronstein)
Although I have no doubt you have “better things” to do than to look at this blog, if you would have had the courtesy to actually follow the links before accusing me of God knows what, you may have realised that this is the 2nd post (see http://grayee.blogspot.com/2008/01/doing-lambeth-walk.html) on the “Lambeth Walk” theme that I have done since Jon Rogers publically attacked you (and I) for daring to stand for the SGE London elections. I would have posted the video last week however; I found a more appropriate poster to put on it.
The YouTube video by Charles Ridley “Lambeth Walk – Nazi Style” is a famous and classic early piece of anti-Nazi propaganda which I would have expected you to have known. The song (and dancing) itself was attacked by the Nazi Party as “Jewish mischief and animalistic hopping”. While allegedly Goebbels himself was so enraged by the video that “he ran out of the screening room kicking chairs and screaming profanities”
I made absolutely clear in the post that this was a historical reference only.
I’m actually very proud of Lambeth members (black and white) for standing up to Jon and defeating this motion. Although it is no doubt personally wounding to you, it is fundamentally imperative that substantiated complaints of racism are properly investigated by the union.
....and No, I do not think that the movers of the motion are goose stepping Nazi either. Even if I can’t stand extreme left politics, there is a huge gulf between you and the BNP.
Ironically it would appear from your comments that you would now support the investigation into the complaint against you if they had asked for an explanation beforehand? What nonsense.
John,
You may be a little over sensitive if you perceived personal abuse in my earlier comment (and I am glad to see that you never stoop so low).
Your "report" from our AGM is so comprehensively inaccurate that it really doesn't merit response.
I shall refer the matter to my fellow branch officers to consider.
Hi Jon
I really wonder what sort of parallel universe you inhabit?
You call someone a liar (not for the first time – and worse!) but don’t consider it to be “abusive”.
You claim that my report is “comprehensively inaccurate” however you refuse to say what is wrong?
Did you not propose the original motion; were certain members of your branch committee absolutely furious and did they believe that the motion had been brought to the AGM behind their backs?
Khi actually proposed to remit. You only swopped sides when one black member pointed out that “When I was younger and someone called me a monkey I would do them some damage”?
If I am wrong then tell me.
John,
you are wrong
I did not propose the motion to which you refer
Khi and I had spoken before it was moved and agreed what needed to be done with it.
I spoke on the motion and supported the consensus position of the branch leadership (with which I wholeheartedly agreed) to refer the matter to the Black Workers Group and the Branch Committee.
If anyone tore up a leaflet I did not see them do it. No United Left leaflets were distributed at the meeting and if there were any leaflets from the SWP I did not see them.
What you failed to mention is that we had almost 200 members present at the meeting and that we completed our agenda, dealing with a wide range of industrial relations issues.
What you won't have known is that shop stewards continued a comradely debate about the motion after the Branch Annual General Meeting.
If a "lie" is when you don't tell the truth then I don't think that it is a personal attack to draw attention to such untruthfulness when it stares me in the face. Either you know that you are misrepresenting what went on or you are reckless as to whether or not that is what you are doing.
I am sure that there are many valid criticisms which you could make of me, and if you keep trying no doubt you will hit upon one one day.
In the mean time you might like to consider whether it would be appropriate to apologise to those branch members whose Annual General Meeting you have so grossly misrepresented.
As one blogger to another, I think it is best not to comment too much on the basis of misinformation - and the best thing to do when a mistake has been made is to apologise.
Please let me know if you would like contact information for the Branch Chair in order to address your apology appropriately.
Hi Jon
Thanks for not making further attacks for a change!
Clearly I will double check with my Lambeth comrades on who actually proposed the 5 monkeys motions (please confirm when you did speak on this debate and how?), you may have spoken to Khi beforehand but did she agree with your “suggestion” that you would support it then remit? (before the motion was moved?); Please confirm that no leaflets were ripped up at the meeting, not that you didn’t see any – for obvious reasons?.
If I am wrong and there is no evidence I will always apologise.
Jon – you seem to think for whatever reasons that the normal rules of personal conduct do not apply to you. You directly accuse me of lying and implying I am a Nazi (reckless or other wise).
Except when it is your own members who are telling me what is going on and how unhappy they are with regard to your support to motions they feel are racist.
BTW where the motions you passed for AGM competent?
John,
Your interest in the Lambeth branch AGM is engaging. The almost 200 people who were present (including our Regional official) know what happened, who spoke when and what they said. No one spoke against the proposal that the motion to which you refer should be referred to the Black Workers Group and Branch Committee. No one (lay or full-time) queried the validity of any of the motions or emergency motions in the meeting.
A full report will be published on the branch blog in the near future. That will contain an accurate report of the meeting, as opposed to the report which you have published. You may wish to consider whether you have been the victim of some elaborate hoax or whether you have simply been too eager to believe things that you wish were true even though they are not.
I shall leave it to an objective reader to make an assessment as to who is more prone to making personal attacks - although I am intrigued that you suggest that I have accused you of being a Nazi (which of course I have not) when it is you who has illustrated a blog post of this nature with what appears upon first glance simply to be a picture of Adolf Hitler!
This could of course give rise to offence although I am sure that was not your intention (since you have avoided the use of personal insults...)
You say "if I am wrong and there is evidence I will apologise" but in fact this is not what you do.
You alleged that "United Left" leaflets were torn up by members at the meeting. Since no such leaflets were there this did not happen but you have not apologised.
You say that I proposed a motion which I did not propose. You have not apologised.
You say that the majority of members at the meeting were "outraged" at the motion and those who supported it - perhaps your informant was not paying attention to what was said in the debate as the first critic of the motion made a point of expressing his support and respect for the mover of the motion. Since you say you will apologise when you get things wrong obviously your apology must be on its way.
Perhaps the apology should be addressed to those readers of this blog who have trusted what you write?
I suppose the reality of blogging is that I ought to leave you to have the last word on your own blog. I hope that you can come up with a witty put down, although appreciate that that may be the triumph of hope over experience.
At any event I wish you well with your blogging and hope that it improves with time.
Hi Jon
just a thought - We “bloggers” do take ourselves very seriously don’t we?
As an elected London regional council officer (pending AGM not withstanding!) I am always interested in the affairs of London branches and members views. I have met a lot of good UNISON members in Lambeth branch over the years.
Just for the record, I never suggested that anyone spoke against the motion to remit. Also, while no-one may have told you yet that they query the validity of the motion (frankly though I doubt it). I have been told by members that there is a fairly widespread view that the motions were “bounced” thought branch committee and should not have been put to the AGM. I am sure of course that there must be some honest mistake and not deliberate bending of the rules to suit your political mates.
With regard to you implying that I am a “Nazi”, well, at risk of being deliberately misrepresented (yet again) you did start this “thread” off by accusing me of quote “How appropriate John, that you should rely upon a "big lie". The expression “Big Lie” was of course coined by Adolf Hitler in “Mein Kampf” which I assume you are referring to? Or perhaps not of course? Silly me.
You will take this as a personal attack, however I am by now quite use to extremists who cannot understand any opposition to their views, find it necessary to try and dismiss all their opponents as right wing, blood and soil “Nazi’s. It makes their lives seem purposeful and relevant I assume.
I’ve seen copies of the leaflets linked to the SWP that were ripped up. Strange you did not?
About you “proposing” the original motion, I will double check and if it is wrong then you will have my profuse and really, really sincere apologies. So did you not speak in favour of the original motion at all then?
I am assured by members that the AGM and certain branch officers were “outraged” by the motion and the way it had “appeared” at the meeting.
So, comrade I suppose in one way I am saying “stick it in your pipe and smoke it”! However, for what its worth, in my own very personal view, you are bang out of order over this issue Jon. Hopefully, the seriously p****d off Lambeth members who have spoken to me will bring you to heal and stop this sort of nonsense happening again.
Post a Comment