Putting an issue to rest.

A reply to the SWP’s ‘Statement on Newcastle allegations.’

On 26 April, the SWP Central Committee released a statement on the SWP website titled ‘Statement on Newcastle allegations’, which was written in response to a statement released on social media by former members of the Newcastle SWP branch on social media, following our resignation from the party.

The statement on behalf of the SWP is both misleading and untruthful, and we believe, brings the organisation into further disrepute.

New Evidence: The lie at the heart of the Crisis

We are privy to new evidence which suggests that Amy Leather and Charlie Kimber have lied to and misled the SWP
On the 25 February 2020, CK, suspended YB on the basis that:
‘We believe that acting for PB when you knew he had been expelled from the SWP for serious inappropriate behaviour towards a woman brought the party into disrepute’
.
On 11 March, during in a ‘special members meeting’ in Newcastle, AL said:
‘In 2015, a complaint was made about his (PB’s) inappropriate behaviour towards women. He was suspended from the SWP. It went through disciplinary process. It was dealt with by the disputes committee. He was never allowed to re-join the Socialist Workers Party’.

The statement released by the SWP on their national site, dated 26th April, states:
‘The man that Yunus Bakhsh represented was an ex member of the SWP. This man was suspended from the SWP in 2015 for inappropriate behaviour towards women and was never allowed to re-join the SWP’
‘The CC thought it was wrong for an SWP member to represent a man expelled from both the SWP and his trade union for inappropriate behaviour towards women’.

Leave aside that there is a difference between being expelled and suspended, these statements are simply untruthful and CK and AL knew it.

We have seen an email sent to PB by JR then Chair of the Disputes Committee ‘headed ‘discussion yesterday’ dated August 26, 2016 which confirms that :
• PB was suspended on 24 October 2015 for a year.
• On August 25 2016, PB met LM and JR (then Chair of the Disputes Committee) at Leeds train station to discuss the terms of his readmission to the SWP.

The email states:
‘We discussed a number of things yesterday. Please read and suggest amendments. You both have P’s statement to the Panel which may include other items.’
The email sets out 3 conditions which would lead to PB’s readmission into the SWP. It concludes with:

‘Recommendation
LM and JR felt that the terms of the Panel’s decision had been met by PB and would recommend to the DC that his suspension from the Party be lifted as from 24.10.16
The recommendation will be discussed by the DC soon after Sept 9th when ML returns. They will then organise a meeting with ## to explain the decision.
A final decision will be notified to the CC and both parties as soon as possible after that.
In addition, there was discussion with P about the difficulties he has faced during the year’s suspension and these were acknowledged and noted’.

This is completely different to what CK and AL have claimed.
Shortly before he was due to be re-admitted a complaint was made against PB in UCU. The evidence suggests that it was PB who took the decision not to re-join the SWP. Therefore
• PB was not expelled from the SWP.
• PB was not told that he would ‘never be allowed to re -join the SWP’.

There is another email dated 15 September 2017 from PB to JR (then chair of the Disputes Committee) headed, ‘discussion yesterday’, in which PB states:
‘Following up our conversations this afternoon, I would like for you to speak to the DC and CC re me re-joining the party’.
This meant PB was still in discussions about re-joining the DC after he instructed YB to represent him in the Certification Officer Case (which was in August 2017).

If PB was told he ‘ was never allowed to re-join the SWP’, as the statement of April 26 states, why was the chair of the DC discussing this very thing with him and clearly giving him the impression that the SWP would consider his readmission?

PB had by then instructed YB to represent him in his case to the certification officer, it is highly likely that too was discussed with the Chair of the DC. This would suggest that AL’s statement, made in Newcastle on 11th March, is almost certainly a lie:
‘The CC discovered this (that YB had represented PB) because a blog was put up in February (2020)’.

These revelations should shock ever SWP member because we believe that it demonstrates:

1. The decision to suspend and discipline YB was premised on a lie. CK knew PB had not been expelled for serious inappropriate behaviour towards women, he was suspended for a year then the DC recommended he be readmitted.
2. The Chair of the DC, LM, knew that YB’s suspension was based on a lie
3. AL knew what she was telling the Newcastle meeting on March 11 was a lie.
4. LM refused to investigate the many complaints about the March 11, as she knew they would raise AL’s falsehoods from the Newcastle meeting.
5. CK misled the National Committee when he spoke about YB’s suspension
6. AL lied to the national party council held last Sunday
7. LM, JR and the CC knew the statement posted on April 26 was based on a lie.
8. Despite AL’s allegations against PB, and the protestations that the party takes the issue of women’s’ oppression seriously, the DC were in conversations with PB regarding his readmittance to the party, even after complaints had been raised in the UCU.

This is only one of many lies and misleading in the statement, but it is the most shocking and must lead SWP members to demand that those involved are suspended immediately to save the organisation.

More lies:

• ‘The SWP takes very seriously any allegations regarding sexist behaviour and therefore the DC is investigating allegations made by Yunus Bakhsh and other members and ex-members separately’. Anyone who has read the resignation letter and the documents knows that the SWP had refused to investigate these complaints. The women complainants reject the attempt to bury their serious concerns and to conflate them with the attack upon YB.

We will be issuing our own statement – we refuse to be silenced

• ‘Yunus Bakhsh was aware that this man was no longer a member of the SWP and why.’

(a) YB did know he was no longer a member that is true
(b) YB had no means of knowing why because the ‘why’ he was suspended was never made public.
(c) The suspension of PB was apparently reported at the 2016 Party conference. As with all such reports, it was completely anonymised no names or details were given.
(d) The CC have produced not one iota of evidence to show how YB could have known why PB was suspended.

• ‘All members are given the right to appeal against disciplinary action taken by the CC to the elected DC of the SWP. Yunus Bakhsh had done this and had been offered a number of different dates by the DC for an appeal hearing. But he did not accept any of these dates or propose alternative dates and has now decided not exercise his right to appeal’

14 February 2020: YB is suspended by text by CK
25 February: YB given one-year punitive suspension
26 February: YB appeals
26 February: LM informed YB that, ‘it is likely, due to work commitments, that the hearing may need to take place on a weekend. We would anticipate that this would be in Newcastle’.
12 March the DC wrote to YB, ‘We are looking to see if Friday March 20th might be possible. Clearly this would need to be sometime in the afternoon to allow for travelling as we are looking to hold the Appeal in London.’
13 March YB replied, ‘Unfortunately I cannot make the date proposed as I am working on that day. I confess to being a bit confused as to why the appeal is being held in London’. YB raises the issue of the conduct of AL at the Newcastle meeting two days before. YB wrote in his email to the DC:

‘With regard then to rearranging an appeal could I ask that as I work fulltime and have child responsibilities …the Appeal is held in Newcastle. I accept that with a possible lockdown on transport etc due to the corona virus it may be that the time scale for the appeal is somewhat longer than set out in the procedures’

16 March YB wrote to the DC
‘Yes, the virus may well put the mockers on any appeal hearing.
I was aware of the timetable for these matters to addressed but given I survived 4 years of suspension /victimisation by my management and union I can handle a few weeks longer of this punitive sanction. I cannot do next weekend in any event’.
18 March, DC informed YB, ‘It certainly does now look like travel restrictions will mean it will be delayed probably for a few weeks.
24 March, DC emailed YB, proposing the appeal be done by Zoom on 11, 18 or 24 April .
1 April, YB replied: ‘My apologises for not back to you sooner as I’m sure you will accept like everyone I’ve had to adapt to this extraordinary situation. I’m afraid for reasons I’ll set out the dates you propose, and the method are impractical. In April I have a remedies hearing a 4 day tribunal, an appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal …plus I have 3 other case management hearings’.
YB refers to childcare and witnesses who are front line workers with work commitments at the weekend. ‘I accept this will mean my appeal being delayed probably until some restrictions are lifted’.
11 April DC replied, ‘We note your request that due to the current situation regarding Covid 19 and the practicalities of arranging a hearing in these circumstances that your appeal be delayed.
However, it is the view of the Disputes Committee that we do now need to seek to proceed on one or more of the dates proposed’.
The DC proposed the 26/27th April and every weekend in May.
25 April YB resigned from the SWP and sent the DC a document ‘For the record ‘.

The CC’s statement is a travesty and gives the impression that YB was avoiding the appeal process.

We write this not to attack the rank and file members of the SWP, but to alert them to the fact that the CC has lied to them. We hope they will read this and act.

We would like to thank the many SWP members, past and present, who have contacted us offering us support and sharing their stories of how they have also been mistreated by the leadership.

To those few people who have felt it necessary to attack and belittle the complainants, we would urge you to read the evidence. We had no alternative than to go public because, contrary to what the SWP statement claims, all our complaints have not been and will not be investigated.

The latest crisis in the SWP is entirely of the making of AL and CK. We believe that all those involved in this disgraceful fiasco should be suspended, and we call for an enquiry into our complaints and the actions of the CC and the DC.

Please note that the other complainants involved will be releasing a statement in regard to their concerns around misogyny, sexism, bullying, accessibility and malicious complaints which the CC and DC have attempted to dismiss and to conflate with the issue of YB’s suspension.