WeeklyWorker

27.03.1997

‘crackers’

Following the voiding of respected Manchester SLP member John Pearson, Scargill is now turning on his defenders

February 17 1997
Dear comrade Scargill

I have just obtained the correspondence between the NEC and comrade John Pearson from the Stockport constituency.

I am rather concerned about the method and attitude the NEC have taken on this issue.

In your letter to comrade Pearson which is undated but was received on February 5 1997 it clearly states that a report was presented to the NEC about comrade Pearson’s activities, and that the NEC agreed that comrade Pearson’s actions were incompatible with the constitution.

As a fellow socialist and an active trade unionist in the TGWU I can’t believe that the NEC with all the members’ socialist and trade union experience have acted in this undemocratic manner which is in line with the actions of bosses and Tory ideas.

If there is a report about comrade Pearson, then his basic right must be to see the allegations made against him and, as every good trade unionist should know, the right of appeal must be allowed. May I also say that in your letter to comrade Pearson you have not given the appropriate section of the constitution that comrade Pearson has fallen foul of.

I have believed and have stated very strongly at previous meetings the first thing our party should have discussed was the constitution because these and other problems would have been made clearer with proper laid out procedure of rules.

I am therefore appealing to our NEC to act in a manner more accustomed to socialism and trade unionism and allow the following rights to comrade Pearson:

  1. re-instatement to the party until a hearing is arranged that comrade Pearson can attend in person.
  2. the right of appeal with the report being made available prior to the appeal.
  3. the right for comrade Pearson to bring any representative to this appeal.
  4. that the NEC organises a conference before the general election to openly discuss our constitution.

I believe that these basic rights to comrade Pearson and to the comrades in the SLP will show that we don’t behave in the same manner as the Labour Party do on expelling people they find hard to understand politically.

Give comrade Pearson his right of appeal.

Yours fraternally
Jack A Crossfield
Tameside branch

March 4 1997
Dear Jack Crossfield

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated February 17 1997 and would respond as follows:

1. You know nothing about the circumstances surrounding the case of John Pearson and I have no intention of entering into correspondence with you or anyone else about what is essentially an internal party matter.

2. The NEC has no intention of organising a conference before a general election to discuss the constitution for two very good reasons:

(a) the constitution does not allow for what you propose, and

(b) to call a conference to discuss an internal complaint would make people think we had gone completely ‘crackers’.

Finally, could I ask you to stop circulating correspondence on internal party matters when you have no authority to do so. This is not a bureaucratic instruction but a statement which is in line with the constitution and one which should be fully understood by any person who has applied for and been granted membership of the Socialist Labour Party.

Arthur Scargill
general secretary