Though Cowards Flinch

I’m not intending for all my contributions at TCF to become about how utterly stupid rightwing blogs are, as there are better things to do.

But the way some of the more foam-mouthed rightwing blogs react to this story, of a soldier found guilty of firearms possession under what appears to be ‘strict liablility’ for this charge,  provides so much handy evidence that leftie bloggers are more interested in actual facts than their rightwing counterparts, that I just couldn’t resist.

Unity’s post at Liberal Conspiracy is quizzical, and through the comments it becomes clear that there may, though not for sure, be more to this story than meets the rightwing blogger eye.  Tom Freeman simply asks the question and seeks information.  Fair enough.  I gave him some as best I could.

Likewise, Jack of Kent, whose blog I’ve never seen before, makes some sensible points without trying to claim he knows everything about the case, and appears to be sane.

I commented as follows on Tom and Unity’s posts, in what i though a reasonable attempt to cast some light on what might be happening:

‘Yes, I think there may well be more than this than meets the eye from the initial report. It’ll be interesting to see what the more foaming rightwing blogs make of it in the next day or two, as matters of detail are not really there forte.

But assuming Mr Clarke’s intentions were as pure as he suggests (and there is no real reason to doubt this yet), the key to the matter may be that of ’strict liablity’ (though I accept what Jack of Kent says of the inadvertent dangers of walking across town with a gun).

When I was a magistrate I faced the odd ’strict liability’ issue in respect of other more minor issues, including driving without insurance.

In circumstances where it was very clear that the driver was ‘innocent’, usually because he worked for a company and simply assumed that the company insured the vehicle, the concept of strict liability also applied.

What had to be done, in the eyes of the law, was for the defendant to plead guilty and then immediately receive an absolute discharge, thus acquiring no criminal record.

The difficulty of course was getting people to understand this strange convolution of pleading guilty in order to found innocent; one clerk of the court round my way used to seem to take a slightly odd pleasure in making it all a bit tricky, rather than just encouraging the chair of the bench to say ‘Listen mate, plead guilty, ‘cos you have to and the law’s maybe a bit stupid/hard to understand about this, but if you do you’ll be out of here 30 seconds without a blemish to your name.’ (Of course that’s difficult, technically, for a magistrate to do before a plea is made.)

The fact that the jury took 20 minutes to decide (which is absolutely the minimum given that they all go to loo and have a cup of tea) suggests that we may be talking a straightforward case. The fact that it has been adjourned for sentence in 4 weeks may suggest a more complex story than we’re first getting, or it may simply be a bureaucratic silliness before an absolute discharge is announced.’

Pretty reasonable stuff, I contend, with a few insights thrown in from my quasi-legal experience.  This is how a well-know Libcon semi-troll responds to this attempt to shed light:

Why did you suggest that it would be the ‘foaming rightwing blogs’ that would be interested in making something of this story?

One would have thought that the prospect of an innocent man being jailed for five years would have exercised those who consider themselves to be liberals.

Or is that indicative of how far along this dark authoritarian road we have sleep-walked?’

Oh clever stuff.  Just ignore totally what I’ve said and pretend I’m a wannabbee authoritarian.  Great technique.  Maybe he’s been learning from Spectator columnists.

Except that this time, given the speed which rightwing foamers have picked up this story, the evidence that he is talking utter shite is just a couple of clicks away.  So I respond:

‘I didn’t say I was interested whether right wing blogs would make something of this story; I said I’d be intererested in what they made of it.

Posts like this from Unity, and from Jack fo Kent, and from Tom Freeman, all make something of it in that they think there may be something more to the story than meets the eye. You yourself have researched and found something, and this ‘antecedent’ may be behind at least in part tghe judge’s decision to dealy sentence. In addition, there may possibly be a case for a Newton hearing, a fairly recnt development where a ‘mini-trial’ may be held after a jury vedict based on strict liability where the issue is not so much the verdict but the level, if any, of sentence. 

We know none of these things, but at least Unity et al. are prepared to be open to new facts as they emerge.

Compare what we get from Devil’s Kitchen (just a taster):

I can only echo the anguished and furious cries of bloggers such as Constantly Furious and Dick Puddlecote: seriously, what the fuck is wrong with this country?’

‘This is, of course, utterly irrelevant: the jury, had they had any balls whatsoever, should have returned a ‘not guilty’ verdict—and they would have been perfectly within their rights to do so. They chose not to.

And now this man faces a minimum of five years in gaol—and not only was he doing ‘the right thing’ but he had not initiated force or fraud against anyone. Do you see?’

As for Devils Kitchen’s notion that it’s because of cowardly jury, has s/he never actually heard of the notion of common law precedent?

I’ve not bothered with Constantly Furious and Dick Puddlecote – you click if you want to - but here’s Charlotte Gore, who is supposed to be on more sensible side of the right.

‘It’s a clear miscarriage of justice. The man’s life is ruined because he tried to do the right thing. What reasonable person would believe this is the correct outcome in this case?

In what way exactly is this a ‘clear miscarriage of justice’? He’s not been sentenced yet, and as I’ve said there remains scope for an absolute discharge, if the facts and Mr Clarke’s motivations are in fact as the initial story suggests.’

Yes, there may be an issue to look at as to why the CPS proceeded to prosecution, but that’s quite a different matter than assuming that civilisation as we know it has come to an end because there’s such a thing as strict liability in law, and has been for quite a while.

Oh, and I see Alex Massie at the Spectator joined in. Now there’s a surprise.  He reckons it’s the ‘most enraging story of the year’ to date that he’s simply regurgitated from his wingnuts links. 

There you have it then, members of the jury.  I submit to you, based on the evidence presented to you today, and in light of the disclosed antecedents in this case, that rightwing bloggers are simply not interested in facts.

This was an interview I did with a Labour Party member from the south-east, who attended the Socialist Party’s Socialism 2009 event, to see what he thought of the whole thing from an outsider’s perspective.

So, Dan, tell us about your role in the Labour Party and about what wing of the party you stand in.

I am ICT and Assistant Secretary for the Southampton and Romsey Labour Party, which involves wrestling with the cumbersome WebCreator software to try and give us some kind of active website. I am also on the Committee of the Southampton University Labour Club, and a local government candidate at the 2010 elections.

In terms of what ‘wing’ I stand in the Labour Party, I don’t like to give myself an ideological title, my political views vary based on the issues. I am a member of Compass as I support their positions on Trident and tackling inequality, but also have views which may well be considered to the right of the party, on crime for example. I would consider myself a socialist, but perhaps my view of socialism is not the same as others.

You attended Socialism 2009. How would you characterize the conference? Is it much different to the sort of Labour conferences you’ve attended?

I’ve been to several Labour and Unison events, and there is definitely a difference from the kind of discussions that I’ve had at them. I found Socialism a mixed bag in terms of events, I enjoyed the Rally, and I enjoyed a panel event that included included Dave Nellist, along with the RMT, AGS, LRC, the Greens and Respect. However, I found the seminars less interesting, and I did detect hints of sectarian differences on the left, notably in the debate about the need to form a new anti-fascist organisation outside of UAF, which seemed foolish to me, and a tendency to hark back to the glory days of Militant with little vision for the future, as I found very prevalent in a discussion entitled “Is Cameron the new Thatcher?” in which no debate on this issue was had, but fluctuated between the days of Liverpool Council and a current dispute involving Leeds binmen.

Can you explain how the Labour and UNISON events differed from the SP event?

Free meals and accommodation! In all seriousness this seemed more ideological and theoretically focused whereas Labour and union events are more policy-focused.

You mentioned the “Is Cameron a new Thatcher?” session which you attended. What about the first Sunday session you attended, on fighting the BNP? What message did you take away from that?

I found it very unimpressive. I am a member of Unite Against Fascism and found the party’s criticism of it odd, given I have found it a very positive and commendable experience. Particularly I am concerned with regard to the Socialist Party’s attitude to “no platform”, with most members at the event refusing to support it, and the Welsh secretary of the SP arguing it needs to be “reassessed”, the BNP “exposed” and a new anti-fascist organisation created. Very troubling and sectarian.

Do you think anything could have been done to improve the discussion in the sessions?

I wish there had been more intervention from the chairs of the various sessions as they quickly descended into a hazy boredom with various ambitious SP members wishing to voice not their ideological opinion but promote some unimportant event that occurred in their area.

Obviously, being a member of Labour, you think that the place of the Left is in the Labour Party. But was there anything during Socialism 2009 which might have convinced you that Labour needs to work with groups like the Socialist Party?

I wouldn’t be opposed to a working relationship between Labour and these organisations particularly the disaffiliated unions, but I think the real question is do factions like the Socialist Party want to work with us? There was a real atmosphere at the debate on the crisis in working-class representation, created by SP members that suggested the Labour party as a political force for leftist politics was over and that it was no longer in the interests of these organisations to consider Labour as a viable group to work with.

One of the things I like to focus on is political theory, on my blog. Did anything at Socialism 2009 bear out any political theories you have, or present evidence to refute them?

I have to be honest, I’m not as well read on political theory as I should be; I tend to find the contemporary and practical application of politics more interesting than the writings of theorists.

What sessions would you like to see on the agenda for next year?

I’d like to see less about the past and more about the future, the implications of a left of Labour coalition, and the benefits and problems it presents. I would like to see less of the harping back to the days of Militant, and more on how the Socialist Party can bring about realistic changes to politics.

In between sessions at Socialism 2009, I took some time to chat to some of the attendees, including a Socialist Party member from the Isle of Wight. I figured a good topic would be the recent campaign around Vestas, where the labour movement tried to intervene to protect the jobs of a bunch of workers who specialize in building parts for wind turbines.

Brother D’s first point was that literally as soon as the occupation of Vestas began, by the factory workers, that the police moved in with barriers and assisted private security in attempting to cut off food. The sheer weight of publicity acquired, however, meant that this was not going to be a workable strategy – people tend to take it amiss when you try and starve workers out.

He was impressed by the way the Socialist Party, the AWL, the local unions and indeed the local Labour Party jumped in feet first, to get leafleting and building support for the workers and for the demonstrations organised to provide some moral support. Though the workers in the plant were not unionised, they quickly became so, being faced with both opposition and support that hinged around the ‘organised labour’ vs. ‘organised bosses’ paradigm.

A permanent camp was established outside the factory, and a broad swathe of opinion mobilised behind the occupying workers.

The local Labour Party supported Vestas, but Brother D thinks that it hindered matters because a) they were marching under a Labour banner, to which not everyone was friendly, and b) they kept demanding negotiation with the government. By all accounts the CLP on the Isle of Wight is fairly left-wing, and was prepared to disagree with the government position. Yet I think the idea of negotiations with this Labour government illuminates some illusions obviously held either in the power of mediatic campaigns, or in the ideology of the government.

A media-orientated campaign was, maintained Brother D, an almost inevitable outcome due to the broadness of the campaign, pulling in people who were not necessarily amenable to more direct solutions, and this acted as a break on the move to support the Vestas workers. None of the groups managed to achieve support for a tactic that might have moved the struggle along.

Interestingly, Brother D suggested that the physical isolation of the most militant workers – those occupying the factory – from the rest of the crowd may have played a role in breaking morale, or preventing the necessary critical mass from building amongst the workers inside and out to try something other than just waiting inside and hoping that the bosses would cave in. Also, following the several demonstrations, a fatigue set in and the familiar malaise of, “what can we really do?” took hold.

Thus, following the sacking of the workers by Vestas, one by one they came out of the factory.

During the dispute, the Tory MP declared that he had intervened on their behalf but ultimately wanted the workers to simply accept the fait accompli that they were being made redundant. The Liberal Democrats were, apparently, completely invisible on the issue. At the very least this demonstrates a clear divide between Labour and the other parties, but doesn’t escape that Labour is still to the Right of demands by workers.

It also demonstrates that, when it comes to a straight-up fight, Tory populism will keep them off pickets and away from workers, and the field will be clear for left-wing radicalisation. Surely proof, if such were needed, about the continuing universality of the working class and the implicit socialist aspect to that class acting in its own interest, with or without acknowledged theoretical leaders.

(See also this excellent interview with one of the Polish workers involved in the occupation).