reblogged via @stavvers: Sheffield Utd need to listen up: rape is not acceptable

with thanks to @stavvers on twitter for this reblog : stavvers Content note: this post discusses rape and rape apologism At the time of writing, Sheffield United are still refusing to make a definitive statement on whether they will re-sign the rapist Ched Evans to the club. This decision is looking more bizarre by the day, as a scramble to disassociate from the enterprise begins. It started with patron Charlie Webster, and then two others followed. Shirt sponsors soon joined, and now Jessica Ennis-Hall, who has a stand named after her at Bramall Lane, wants her name removed if the rapist is re-signed. It seems bizarre, therefore, that United haven't come out and distanced themselves to a different country than Evans. There is likely a certain level of cynicism, at least among some of those pulling away from Sheffield United: a fear of negative publicity for their brand rather than a genuine commitment to ending rape culture. No business wants to be known as "that rape company" upon their logo being proudly displayed on the shirt of a convicted rapist. However, some seem to be putting across good messages, like Charlie Webster, who explained: There can be no doubt that Evans is influencing a young generation of men who are still developing their opinions on how to treat women. They develop these opinions and morals based on the role models they see around them, the role models that we give them. I cannot publicly support a club that presents a convicted rapist as a role model. These young men are standing by their hero, showing him unwavering solidarity and support, without actually understanding or really thinking about what Evans has done. But we are the ones who set Evans up an influencer. We are the ones presenting a convicted rapist a role model to our young people. Is that ok? This is the crux of the matter. Every second United delay sending a clear message that they have no intention of re-signing Evans allows yet more young men think that they can rape someone, and, on the very unlikely chance they get caught, it will present little more than a small blip in an otherwise glamorous career. Given that on the current landscape, signing a convicted rapist makes terrible business sense, one can only assume that this is exactly the game Sheffield United are playing. It's becoming abundantly clear that this is what they want, to nurture the next generation of young rapists into comfortable , well-paid lives. A common myth among rape apologists is that an accusation of rape can ruin a man's life. Nowhere is this shown more obviously to be false than when we look to Ched Evans. This man is a convicted rapist, and his club have bent over backwards to accommodate him, against the forces of general business acumen. Evans still enjoys an army of loyal defenders of rape, willing to trumpet that even though he was convicted of rape it wasn't really rape. I do not think this whole affair has taught Ched Evans nothing. It's taught him and the men that he influences that yes, you really can get away with it. Fortunately, there are enough people out there who don't want this to happen, and can see these ramifications as clear as day. Our voices are growing louder, and it looks as though this time, it might just be winnable. Surely Sheffield United must know by now that if they don't kick that convicted rapist soon, they'll go down with him? If they haven't realised it by now, I'll gladly watch them burn. stavvers | November 13, 2014 at 9:41 pm | Categories: rape | URL: http://wp.me/p1pLiJ-FJ

Why no one should work with Steve Hedley and full support to Caroline Leneghan

I have been following this case closely in the last year and beyond to be honest. I have to confess I was a socialist party member when none other than Steve Hedley at Socialism a grand event put on by the Socialist party in early november to sure up their power and so on announced he was a member this cannot go unnoticed. I heard Steve Hedley on stage declare himself a socialist party member and from here on in despite what put out by the party itself its clear to me they have always supported Steve in and out of politics and the subsequent events they stand by unfortunately. This was not the main reason I left the SP it certainly did not encourage me to stay any longer than I had to however. I am deeply suspicious of so called trotskyist groups now including the two main organisation in that span of thinking in the UK the SWP and the SP who when it comes down to it are just as bad as each other. If one claims to be more democratic than the other is simply coincidence as for me whiter they saw Russia as state capitalist or not the same ideas following that have been consistent even if either party will like to admit as much. I will now quote from Libcom.org the full statement by the guy who was representing Caroline Caroline Leneghan in the RMT investigation against Steve Hedley and this will outline why Steve still has a case to anser to and why the wider left must have nothing to do with him and his ilk again. Steve Hedley: not “cleared of domestic violence” with a case still to answer - Andy Littlechild “Steve Hedley was not cleared of domestic violence and still has a case to answer according to the RMT rep representing his former partner in her complaint of physical, emotional and verbal abuse. I’m writing the following statement as the RMT rep representing Caroline Leneghan in relation to her complaint of physical, emotional and verbal abuse by Steve Hedley RMT Assistant General Secretary. I’ve just returned from a week away on holiday to discover the initial stage of the unions investigation completed, with an unsatisfactory outcome of no further action (investigation) to take place, and a statement from Steve Hedley that I believe as Caroline’s rep to be misleading. My statement below is solely based on this statement, all my comments are relating to its contents. To date I have refrained from involvement in the large amount of internet content in relation to her case; and have kept my role as her rep between those who were involved within the RMT. Apart from that I have only disclosed my involvement to the 2 RMT “officials” whom I directly report to in order to be accountable, maintaining strict confidentiality around the whole issue in all respects. My intention here is to set the record straight following Steve Hedley’s recent statement and other similar internet posts from other people/groups which are inaccurate, and to put forward the facts so people are in possession of them. I’m not a member of political group seeking to make politically motivated (or any other) attacks on Steve Hedley or the RMT; I’m Caroline Leneghan’s RMT rep. Verbal, Cyber and Threats of violence Firstly, in light of his statement; I’d like to make it clear that neither Caroline nor myself or any other of her friends have at anytime known to her took part in abuse or threats of violence etc. to Steve Hedley or any members of his family. If anyone has done that I condemn it completely. Caroline Leneghan’s Allegations & Evidence You can read Caroline’s allegations in her opening post above, and view the photos of her injuries. In his statement, Steve Hedley rightly says that Caroline Leneghan’s complaint was submitted a year after the event (with the implication that this makes it less worthy of belief?!). In fact this is a fairly common occurrence with women reporting domestic abuse, for reasons that are well documented and understood: misplaced loyalty, the belief the abuser will change, fear of retaliation or not being believed, and along with even telling others at the time that facial injuries are “an accident” to protect an abuser are symptoms in themselves of being a victim of domestic violence. Steve Hedley claims that Caroline’s allegations are unfounded and her photographic evidence “dubious”, and due to this “no further action” was the outcome of the police investigation. This is somewhat misleading; the police officer dealing with her complaint stated in writing to her: “….there is a high chance of conviction if this matter was to be taken to Court. We would be able to say that your account remains that you were assaulted and that we have no reason to suspect you made the matter up. In the same vein we would say Steve was not exonerated. It was simply that the matter was not capable of proof at Court. Both yourself and Steve accept the injuries you received were as a result of an incident between the two of you. You claim to have been assaulted and Steve claimed self defence as a result of you attacking him. In the absence of any witnesses or background history we couldn’t prove the matter either way. This coupled with the injuries you received being of a CPS charging standard of common assault meant that we have only 6 months from the incident to bring the matter before a Court. This had lapsed prior to initial report”. So the reality is that far from her “claims being unfounded and her evidence dubious” as put forward in Steve Hedley’s statement, Caroline’s allegations to the police weren’t taken any further due to the CPS’ procedural limits on timescales for cases to go to court. Previously during the RMT enquiry I had to challenge the exact same misrepresentation of the police investigation that Steve Hedley put forward. *(I have documented evidence to support this). RMT’s “Exhaustive Investigation” Similarly; Steve Hedley’s statement puts forward that the RMT following an “exhaustive investigation” said he had “no case to answer”. Again, you can read for yourself in her opening post above the manner in which the enquiry was conducted by RMT, and there are 2 facts that need to also be explained here: 1. The RMT procedure for complaints is adhoc, (i.e. not a written down), but broadly equated to the General Secretary instructing the Senior Assistant General Secretary to conduct “an enquiry” into Caroline’s complaint against Steve Hedley (2nd Assistant General Secretary). Upon concluding his enquiry; the Senior AGS presented his enquiry report to the General Secretary for him to decide whether or not to submit it to the RMT Council of Executives for a full investigation to be undertaken. The General Secretaries decision was NOT to submit Caroline’s complaint to the RMT Executive Council, and no full investigation was undertaken. 2. The reason given to Caroline by the General Secretary for not instructing the Executive Council to undertake a full investigation was that her RMT membership did not cover the date/time the incident took place, and also due to a lack of corroborating evidence (which I believe may be alluding to no witnesses being willing to come forward?). However, the General Secretary stated that “both you and Steve Hedley agree an incident took place”. In closing; the General Secretary advised that “I will not be taking any further action on this matter”. At no point was the dropping of Caroline’s complaint by the General Secretary stated as because Steve Hedley “had no case to answer” as claimed by him in his statement! *(I have documented evidence to support this). Threatening Texts from Caroline Leneghan Caroline texted Steve around the general time of their relationship break up, though I’m not aware of their content apart from the one text read to us during the enquiry. While the texts may be of a particularly emotional nature, I would put it that texts sent by people during a break up generally are of an emotional nature and that it is unremarkable in its obviousness. In relation to this same text referred by Steve Hedley in his statement where Caroline states “you’re going down Steve” or something similar; this had another meaning than that implied by Steve of “I’m going to get you”!. As Caroline explained at the time, the context was “you will be found out” / “you will not get away with it” (i.e. beating her up). Caroline Leneghan and me as her rep were not read any other texts that I remember(?), and Caroline refutes sending “hundreds of threatening texts” in the manner claimed by Steve Hedley. Caroline Leneghan’s “Mental Health Problems” Caroline like many people (national average is 25% of the population suffer from a mental health issue during their lives) has suffered with mental health issues; in her youth she self-harmed, and today copes with depression. She is not a violent person and has no history of violence towards anyone (a history of self-harm (superficial cutting as teenager) is the exact opposite of outward violence. The implication in the way Steve Hedley has put forward “mental health issues” so prominently seems to be aimed at saying that people with common mental health issues are violent and have a tendency towards violence; this serves to demonise, stigmatise and stereotype people with mental health difficulties, in particular for women for who this stereotype is more problematic. Some of the factual details above of Caroline Leneghan’s mental health history were disclosed to Steve by her when they were happier, as couples do sharing and being intimate together. Using this evidence of Caroline’s mental health along with allegations of assault by Caroline Leneghan on himself that she totally refutes, is an irresponsible and gross misrepresentation of the experience of people that suffer with mental health issues such as depression. Caroline’s complaint was a straight forward matter of her being assaulted by Steve Hedley, which he either did or didn’t do; her mental health has nothing to do with the complaint that she raised. However, it seems the case that Steve Hedley believes it important to repeatedly portray Caroline as a “mental case”; which similarly I have had to previously challenge during the initial RMT enquiry. *(I have documented evidence to support this). Appeal to the RMT Executive Council Despite his misleading claims in his statement that he had been cleared by both the police and the RMT of domestic violence, there is still also a case remaining for Steve Hedley answer. Caroline Leneghan has submitted her request for an appeal against the decision of the RMT GS. She was advised by reply that her request for an appeal will go before the RMT Executive Council. Posted By libcom Apr 9 2013 15:13 https://libcom.org/news/steve-hedley-not-cleared-domestic-violence-case-still-answer-08042013

The significance of the 100th anniversary of international womens day

SO today March the 8th we celebrate the 100th anniversary of international womens day

International Women's Day has been observed since in the early 1900's, a time of great expansion and turbulence in the industrialized world that saw booming
population growth and the rise of radical ideologies.

1908
Great unrest and critical debate was occurring amongst women. Women's oppression and inequality was spurring women to become more vocal and active in campaigning
for change. Then in 1908, 15,000 women marched through New York City demanding shorter hours, better pay and voting rights.

1909
In accordance with a declaration by the Socialist Party of America, the first National Woman's Day (NWD) was observed across the United States on 28 February.
Women continued to celebrate NWD on the last Sunday of February until 1913.

1910
n 1910 a second International Conference of Working Women was held in Copenhagen. A woman named a
Clara Zetkin
(Leader of the 'Women's Office' for the Social Democratic Party in Germany) tabled the idea of an International Women's Day. She proposed that every year
in every country there should be a celebration on the same day - a Women's Day - to press for their demands. The conference of over 100 women from 17 countries,
representing unions, socialist parties, working women's clubs, and including the first three women elected to the Finnish parliament, greeted Zetkin's
suggestion with unanimous approval and thus International Women's Day was the result.

1911
Following the decision agreed at Copenhagen in 1911, International Women's Day (IWD) was honoured the
first time
in Austria, Denmark, Germany and Switzerland on 19 March. More than one million women and men attended IWD rallies campaigning for women's rights to work,
vote, be trained, to hold public office and end discrimination. However less than a week later on 25 March, the tragic 'Triangle Fire' in New York City
took the lives of more than 140 working women, most of them Italian and Jewish immigrants. This disastrous event drew significant attention to working
conditions and labour legislation in the United States that became a focus of subsequent International Women's Day events. 1911 also saw women's '
Bread and Roses'
campaign.
 
1913-1914
On the eve of World War I campaigning for peace, Russian women observed their first International Women's Day on the last Sunday in February 1913. In 1913
following discussions, International Women's Day was transferred to 8 March and this day has remained the global date for International Wommen's Day ever
since. In 1914 further women across Europe held rallies to campaign against the war and to express women's solidarity.

1917
On the last Sunday of February, Russian women began a strike for "bread and peace" in response to the death over 2 million Russian soldiers in war. Opposed
by political leaders the women continued to strike until four days later the Czar was forced to abdicate and the provisional Government granted women the
right to vote. The date the women's strike commenced was Sunday 23 February on the Julian calendar then in use in Russia. This day on the Gregorian calendar
in use elsewhere was 8 March.

1918 - 1999
Since its birth in the socialist movement, International Women's Day has grown to become a global day of recognition and celebration across developed and
developing countries alike. For decades, IWD has grown from strength to strength annually. For many years the United Nations has held an annual IWD conference
to coordinate international efforts for women's rights and participation in social, political and economic processes. 1975 was designated as 'International
Women's Year' by the United Nations. Women's organisations and governments around the world have also observed IWD annually on 8 March by holding large-scale
events that honour women's advancement and while diligently reminding of the continued vigilance and action required to ensure that women's equality is
gained and maintained in all aspects of life.

2000 and beyond
IWD is now an official holiday in Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, China (for women only), Cuba, Georgia, Guinea-Bissau,
Eritrea, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Madagascar (for women only), Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Nepal (for women only), Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan,
Uganda, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Vietnam and Zambia. The tradition sees men honouring their mothers, wives, girlfriends, colleagues, etc with flowers and small
gifts. In some countries IWD has the equivalent status of Mother's Day where children give small presents to their mothers and grandmothers.

The new millennium has witnessed a significant change and attitudinal shift in both women's and society's thoughts about women's equality and emancipation.
Many from a younger generation feel that 'all the battles have been won for women' while many feminists from the 1970's know only too well the longevity
and ingrained complexity of patriarchy. With more women in the boardroom, greater equality in legislative rights, and an increased critical mass of women's
visibility as impressive role models in every aspect of life, one could think that women have gained true equality. The unfortunate fact is that women
are still not paid equally to that of their male counterparts, women still are not present in equal numbers in business or politics, and globally women's
education, health and the violence against them is worse than that of men.

However, great improvements have been made. We do have female astronauts and prime ministers, school girls are welcomed into university, women can work
and have a family, women have real choices. And so the tone and nature of IWD has, for the past few years, moved from being a r eminder about the negatives
to a celebration of the positives.


So i do hope you can all join me in celebrating this great day where many have sacrificed a lot of their time and effort to the movement for change for women. I think it is e xcellent this day was born out of the socialist movement too we must never forget the role women play in society and what they contribute to the fight for fairness across the globe.
With the horrific cuts about to hit most countries around the world it will be women who i hear will be most affected we must stand by them and fight and strike with them on the picket lines if it comes to that.

This is a significant day for many people and this day should be respected for what it is.

Can labour achieve gender balance in the next parliament ?

Well over the weekend i was reading a interview with the Labour party leader Ed miliband and his thoughts of achieving gender equality balance under his leadership.

I thought i should blog on this. I ask you is this possible ? i personally think this is doable. Since the last election labour has gained a lot of female members and i've made friends with a lot of politically engaged women now. It is great to see. But one thing is having new female members of the party and anotehr thing to transforming them into good labour female MP's.

It is tricky but i do hope labour can be seen as the home for women in politics with a fair chance of making the shortlists of being a parliamentary candidate.

Hariot Harman has done wonders in this area at raising the profile of women in the party. I do also think unions especially ones affiliated with labour and the labour movement could do more to encourage women to join a union and gain positions of power within their union.

I am all for equality as you amy all well know but i think labour and the unions need to go further to help this.

It is the start of what i feel is the reallignment of the working class's. Helping other parts of society feel properly represented. This will eventually include women, men, Lesbians, gay and transexual people, disabled and any other group of people i may have messed out if i have i apologise. I just want labour to rediscover itself as being a party for all. a fair chance for all to make it in politics. A fair chance for everyones views to be heard whatever background you are from.