SUTR SWP and Rape Apologism

Trigger Warning: Sexual Assault, Verbal Abuse, Physical Assault, Rape, Victim Blaming, Rape Apologism.
Contents
(i) intro
(ii) Key/Glossary
1. Nationally SUTR is controlled by the SWP.
2. Locally SUTR is controlled by the SWP.
3. What an SWP front group, such as SUTR, actually is.
4. The 2013 'crisis' i.e. the SWP leadership was complicit in the allowing of sexual assault, victim blaming and the perpetuating of rape culture. Including the current national co-leader of SUTR.
5. Many SWP members  fought their leadership & attempted to change the SWP but ended up resigning or being forced out. Those activists that remained between 2013 and now tacitly or actively support the actions in 4.
6. New SWP members joining post 'crisis' and unaware of it, should wherever possible be warned of the toxic-culture of the organisation
7. How others have responded to SWP and SUTR

(i) intro
This document is far longer than originally intended.  Its a complex and important issue though. The gist is SUTR is an SWP front, the SWP took part in rape apologism and a cover up, then targeted dissenting voices from within and without their organisation with harassment and violence.
You don't have to read all of the following if you know parts of the background already, I've split it into headed sections making claims/points in bold and then evidence to support them/ the reasoning behind them. Points 1-3 clarify the connection between SUTR and SWP, and local SWP acts of aggression in the South West. Points 4-6 the actions of the SWP in rape cover-up and the fallout amongst it membership. Point 7 how others have acted in response to SWP/SUTR as a result.
It was written by someone in Bristol, so does put more focus on events, individuals and groups in Bristol and the South West. However the majority of it is relevent anywhere. If you live in another area, perhaps see Bristol as an example of how the SWPs/SUTRs problems are not limited to just the national leadership.
If you are reading this on pastebin or similar, which doesn't allow hyperlinks,  URLs for [sources] are written at the end. Any content that has been deleted from the web can likely be found by using the way back machine at https://web.archive.org/

(ii) Key/Glossary
SWP = the Socialist Workers Party (A UK wide party in existence in various forms since 1950)
CC = Central committee, the national leadership of the SWP
DC = Disputes committee, a body of the SWP that hears and rules on complaints/disputes from inside the party. The majority of its members are also on the CC.
Front Group = see pt 3
SUTR = Stand Up to Racism (an SWP front group - see pt 1 below)
UAF = Unite Against Fascism (a now partly defunct SWP front group, mostly replaced by SUTR)
ANL = Anti Nazi League (an entirely defunct group, setup by the SWP, reluanched entirely as a front group, then merged with/replaced by UAF)
Comrade Delta = reference to long time SWP CC member Martin Smith, at the centre of the SWPs rape apologism.

1. Nationally the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) created and run Stand Up To Racism (SUTR)  as an SWP 'front group'. This is primarily a response to the decline of their previous front group Unite Against Fascism(UAF) in the fall out of the 2013 'crisis' in the SWP. It is effectively a change in branding rather than in organisation.
Here you can see UAF  [1] as the organiser of the 2014 UN anti-racism day demo in London that SUTR is fundraising for/organising. At this point - 2014 - 'stand up to racism' was a name used for demos by UAF before it became a group name.
in 2015, instead of the leaflet saying 'organised by UAF' it asked people to 'sign up to stand up to racism [...] make cheques payable to unite against fascism' [2], at this point it is fairly openly just a brand used by UAF, not a group operating independently. In 2016, SUTR was first listed as the organiser [3]  with UAF as one of the supporters, by this point it is portrayed as a separate organisation. 2017 is the first year where the rally is not publicised heavily on the UAF website, in fact UAF are not mentioned as a listed supporter at all on the facebook event [4], though they are still on the leaflet [5].
The co-convenor (ie one of two leaders) of SUTR nationally is Weyman Bennett, previously vice-secretary (ie one of two leaders) of UAF, and he is currently a Central committee Member of the SWP (re-elected to it from 2013 onwards) [6].
 The founding statement of SUTR as displayed on their website, states that SUTR is an initiative of UAF ('Unite Against Fascism has therefore initiated this call for a demonstration and rally to Stand Up to Racism') [7] .

The SWP website [8] reads: 'The themes of anti-racism and the Stand Up to Racism (SUTR) campaign ran through the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) annual conference last weekend. Weyman Bennett from the SWP central committee said, “The fight against racism has become central" [...] Weyman said, “We have SUTR but not as a mass organisation. It has to be on the same scale as the Anti Nazi League(ANL) in the 1970s.”' The ANL [9] was another previous anti-racist/fascist group set up by the SWP that eneded up becoming a front group. It ceased to exist just after the creation of UAF, and the last person to be it's leader before it merged with UAF was... Weyman Bennett! The leader of ANL before him was also a member of the SWP Central committee.

Any further investigation will likely lead to similar evidence, I'd say it's fairly beyond argument that nationally SUTR = UAF = SWP.

2. Locally, SUTR was spearheaded by members of Bristol SWP (in line with SWP national policy) who at the same time had abandoned local organising under the UAF banner.
Since the SWP group was(is?) a lot smaller than pre-2013, those long term members who stayed in Bristol SWP have focused almost all their organising effort as a group on it. This is why, as an example, you will see more SWP leaflets/newspapers/placards/people on a stall at every single SUTR event and demo than you would at comparable demos/events. It is also why most SUTR events have included long term SWP member 'Pete W' speaking as a representative for the group or chairing and introducing the speakers.  Not only did Pete come out in support of the structures and individuals in the national SWP who actively engaged in rape-apologism (as did others still in since before 2013), he personally acted in an aggressive and misogynistic way. At a silent demo at Bristol Uni with banners saying 'no to rape apologism' (but not mentioning the SWP by name), consiting entirely of bristol uni students and feminist-soc members  he shouted and screamed in the face of a woman who had been a college student of his a couple of years prior! (I won't name her for confidentiality reasons, but can ask if she'd make a statement to that effect if anyone doubts it) It came to light Pete had previously been accused of sexism and bullying of women [10] by other SWP members in 2005, resulting in three resignations, I can't pretend to know the details but it does seem like a consistent pattern.

Other speakers at recent SUTR events in the south west  & spokespeople for them to the press include Martin Upchurch, who was previously Bristol UAF convenor  [11] (and who is a long term SWP member and Nahella Ashraf (from manchester) billed as 'SUTR' in 2017, 'UAF' in 2014 [12] and an SWP member [13]throughout. Non-SWP members generally include those that have built up a long term close working relationship with SWP, it's UAF front or both. Moazzam Begg for example regularly spoke at SWP events and was a headline speaker of the national SWP 'marxism' conference 2016 [14], 2017 [15], and was in 2008 [16], perhaps more (I stopped googling).  Hibaq Jama is a Labour councillor who has previously supported UAF and spoken [17] as a representative of their demonstrations,

3. Creating front groups is a key part of SWP strategy, those in the groups often won't be a part of the SWP but that doesn't change their role in aiding the SWP.
The SWP believe that to carry out a revolution the working class need to unite in a single organisation (or 'party') rather than being in a plurality of groups or movements. Of course they believe that this organisation should be the SWP (or otherwise they would leave it!). It follows therefore that to them, the key part of any action no matter it's size should be that it 'builds the party'. This includes recruiting party activists who will carry out the work of the party and party members who will pay subscription money to the party. It also includes building the presence of the party, and support for it amongst the wider population. For example by selling it's paper, encouraging people to attend its speaking events and getting people to hand over their personal details for it's mailing lists - normally deceptively in the guise of a 'petition' that it never gets handed in anywhere.

While almost all political groups will want to do this it becomes an issue when mixed with the idea that building the party is more important than anything else, including the stated aims of your campaign. It also means you have to prioritise maintaining or gaining control of any front/campaign you join, as this is the only way to ensure that it continues to prioritise the growth of the SWP, and doesn't do anything to undermine the SWP.
For example SWP's UAF front's primary goal was building the SWP. It's secondary goal was confronting the rise of fascism.  SWP's front group 'right to work' had the primary goal of building the SWP, and the secondary goal of better working rights for young people. SWP's Unite The Resistance front group had the primary goal of building the SWP, and the secondary goal of fighting government cuts.  In Bristol the SWP had previously been in Bristol and District Anti Cuts Alliance, where their members openly asked for our(anarchists) help in electing SWP members to leadership positions, in return for them sharing said votes with us (to be fair, the same evening a member of a competing socialist party had made the exact same offer). Later when another party gained these leadership positions the SWP all left to form the Bristol branch of 'Unite the Resistance'.

So what does all this mean? Well firstly it means that a front group can be a front group even if many of it's members are not in the SWP. Even it's leaders, especially at a local level, don't need to be SWP. As long as the SWP can continue to control the organisation. They can do this in a number of ways. One way is by ensuring at a national level the leadership is at least 50% SWP members, and ideally mostly only them and their close allies. Decisions are then passed down to the local groups. Having an SWP members meeting before each 'front group' meeting, where they decide on plans and push for them in an organised fashion is another common tactic. They call this caucusing (ask your ex-swp mates)! In this way the SWP can influence the direction of a group even if they are a minority with in it - simply by being the largest organised faction with in it, and hiding the fact that they are acting in this way.

In Summation: An SWP front group doesn't have to be mainly SWP members, or even leaders. It's normal for people to not even know they are in a front group. However, it is impossible to support a front group without supporting the SWP, even if you don't know you are doing so.
This is because the front groups primary goal is to build the party (the SWP), and the SWP maintain control over it to ensure this is the case. It doesn't mean individual SWP members don't passionately support the cause the front group is fighting for. It just means they likely also believe that for any radical-cause to be grown the SWP must be grown as well. At the very least this is the majority view of their party, this is true even if it comes  the expense of what they see as the 'short term' success of a campaign (as long term success is only possible via a strong SWP).


4. The Central Committee of the SWP on receiving an official complaint regarding an accusation from 'w' that a member of the committee (Martin Smith/delta) had sexually harassed, assaulted and raped her, referred it to a disputes committee entirely made up of the accused's friends, who proceeded to bring up the survivors past sexual history. They decided their friend was innocent. Leaked SWP internal minutes state that it's leadership was determined that the accusation be kept away from police.
Some of the first people to discuss the actions of the disputes committee (who met and ruled on the above in October 2012) were based in Bristol, at least one faced suspension for discussing it 'outside of official channels'. In January 2013 it was discussed at the 'disputes committee report' to the SWP's members conference. Here is a  27 page transcript of the report [18], it was leaked by SWP members outraged at their leaderships actions, and starts with the committees official version of events. No one has ever denied it is genuine. During the Disputes committee hearing two other women came forward, one relaying her experiences of sexual harassment at the hands of Martin Smith, another of sexual assault.
The exact events that took place between Martin Smith and the survivor between 2008 and 2009 are 'disputed' by him and his supporters. There is also 'dispute' around how precisely the central committee and disputes committee acted to investigate. There are also varying claims about how his supporters acted towards other members of the SWP. Whether or not you believe 'survivors should be believed', that are a huge number of objective, and damning facts.  You may think, perhaps fairly, that you cannot judge what happened in the SWP around 2013, if this is the case maybe you should look at how SWP members at the time responded themselves. A *huge* number of active members left the SWP over this, they wouldn't have done it if the evidence as they saw it wasn't pretty damning. For example all the UWE students left, as did long-term SWP activists who had previously held leadership positions in both Bristol SWP and Bristol UAF. Most importantly even facts never denied by the central&disputes committees, and even a couple they stated themselves are damning enough! Here are some key points taken from the above report (unless otherwise stated) my opinions on them are in italics, the non italics are facts agreed by all sides within the SWP.
* Disputes committee admits 'We then discussed the situation that we all knew Comrade Delta. We knew his important role in the party and on the central committee, and none of us knew W or knew her well.' (W is how the survivor is referred to in SWP reports). The majority of the disputes committee were also central committee members, along side Smith.  This should never have been allowed to happen... and there wasn't even suggestion rules should be changed to prevent it happening in the future.
* W was not allowed to talk about her experiences with the committee to the wider membership, despite requesting it. Yet the membership was expected to rule on whether to accept the way it had been handled?
* 'she was asked about past and subsequent sexual relationships'  - a witness to the hearing stated this. The disputes committee refused to confirm or deny it. I'd hope most people would agree with me that a persons consensual sexual relationships bare absolutely no relevance to whether or not they have been raped.
* 'she was asked why she went for a drink with him' - person speaking on behalf of W, no denial.  Again, how the hell is this relevant?
* Martin Smith was given the statements by W weeks in advance of the hearing, whilst W was expected to respond to martin's statements immediately -again a witness stated this, committee didn't deny it. The SWP is effectively conducting a trial, yet is not doing so remotely 'fairly'.
* W said she felt like she was the one being interrogated by the committee. - person speaking on behalf of W.  Survivors of rape should never be made to feel like this, after having already taken the massively difficult step of raising the issue in the first place.
* A second woman talked about raising a complaint against Martin Smith for sexual harassment, and was then told she shouldn't speak at or attend the conference for the sake of 'harmony' - mentioned by two people addressing the conference, no denial of it.  I agree with one of the people that raised it, this is effectively punishing someone for speaking up about sexual harassment. What sort of message does that send to other potential survivors of abuse, or to other potential perpetrators?
* Supporters of Martin Smith, including Weyman Bennett of the CC, UAF and SUTR, branded the survivor a 'traitor' for speaking out against smith. Source.[19] No comment...
* W reports that the issues with the SWP are systemic, this is not a one off. Source [20]

...There are more details if anyone wants to read the full minutes, or this report by an ex-SWP journalist [21] who stood down because of this case.  This even got covered by the Independant [22]newspaper. In summation the way this was handled by the leadership was awful.  Whilst there is far from universal agreement amongst activists on how we should respond to incidents of abuse and assault within our groups and communities, i'd like to think there was agreement that it is *not like this*.
We should be trying to be better than the world around us, not worse. We should prioritise supporting survivors, and protecting people who may be targeted in the future. We should be honest about the limits of our expertise and knowledge and abilities - not attempt to form our own courts to exonerate our own friends. We certainly should do everything in a way that a survivor feels comfortable with - and never end up putting the fates of everyone in the hands of the close friends and allies of an accused rapist. We should also completely put aside all other factors such as the best outcome (politically/publicly) for us or our group... this would involve not having the case largely handled by the leadership of our group who are formed into a committee who's main stated purpose is the political well being of our group!

I've gone into a lot of detail here, but I guess it's also rather sketchy on some details. I haven't taken the additional time to fill them all in as the view that the way the committees acted was fucked up isn't one that I’ve ever seen be controversial.  Literally the only people i've ever heard argue it wasn't are the committees themselves and those activists within the SWP who supported them at the time. Again if more points or sources to back up this claim are needed I can probably find them for folks.

5. Those SWP members who supported Martin Smith clamped down on descent. Two Central committee members who spoke out against the actions were removed from re-election, four members were expelled for raising questions, and a campaign of bullying and harassment affected those who first spoke out, and those who has given witness statements against Smith. Hundreds of SWP activists resigned over the following year, a huge percentage of the active membership of the SWP, all appalled with the handling and/or with no faith that future incidents would be handled any better.
The journalist's report [23] above mentions most of these claims. The minutes report the result of the vote, namely that 45% of the SWP activists present -209 people- voted to reject the report. It was made clear by speakers in the run up that a vote to reject the report meant not having faith in the process as carried out by the CC/DC and thus attempting to radically reform (or completely rebuild from scratch) how the SWP dealt with situations like this in the future. However the move to reject failed, 50.4% voted to accept the report, and thus no procedures were changed. No rules altered.
SWP elections to their CC run on a 'slate' system. You can't vote in/out an indivudal, instead an entire 'slate' of people is put forward to vote for. This makes it hard to change who controls the CC (and the DC) and to effectively challenge them as members -  as you have to put together a whole raft of people at once, who can campaign together.  Despite the difficulties a chunk of the membership tried to challenge the CC, having lost faith in the leadership over this incident. Eventually they formed an official 'faction'(or three) within the SWP to carry this out. They lost narrowly. The CC was challenged again at a special conference called two months later due to the anger in the membership, again attempts to oust it failed [24]. The final mass attempt to reform the SWP took place at its next (non special) conference at the end of 2013. Each failure was met with mass resignations from the party. Some did continue to stay in the party and attempt to change it, but in the end these long term efforts also failed, and with them went more members. The number of resignations mark a significant percentage of the actual 'active' members, that is people who attend meetings, helped organise and went to protests within the SWP. These people were in otherwords some of the most comitted to the SWP prior to these events. It's impossible to put an exact figure on how many people left in disgust at their own leaderships actions, but it was significant.
As additional sources, and for more details i'll list some public resignation letters/events:
Resignations from Sheffield, [25] 18 in total including the president of the SWP Student Society.
Resignation of Sussex University SWP Student Society, [26]8 members total.
Resignation of entire Leeds Student SWP [27]13 members total
Resination letter of one of the central committee members [28]who didn't support Martin Smith
Mass resignation letter - signed by 123, [29]yes one hundred and twenty three members. It references those that are opposed to the CC/DC and are staying inside to fight.
Resignation of entire Manchester student branch. [30](There is a trend here, with younger SWP members being most likely to leave).
Another mass resignation following the Decemeber 2013 conference. [31] 165 signatories this time. This was the conference where the Central committee announced the changes they thought were required to their processes and rules around disputes - clearly those that disagreed with the initial actions felt this didn't go nearly far enough.
The main point I want to make here, is perhaps you feel you can't judge how the SWP behaved as you weren’t there and don't know much about the SWP. What is clear however is that hundreds of people who were there, and who dedicated themselves to the SWP judged that it had utterly failed to uphold its supposed feminist principles, and had failed (and would continue to fail) to deal with sexual harassment and rape within its leadership.   Whilst the person at the centre of the allegations resigned 'for the good of the party', none who were responsible for the appalling actions of the CC/DC or of the harassment of the survivor, her witnesses and her supporters have left.

Why didn't everyone leave? Why did enough support the CC/DC to win votes? Well, part of this is power. The SWP is hierarchical and those at the top demanded support. They also had the resources available to put their side of events forward as the truth. They could also appeal to people to 'sweep it away' for the 'good of the party'. More than this, there was an active campaign(unofficially of course), already mentioned above[32], by the CC to smear their opponents as people driven by hidden 'political agendas' looking to destroy the SWP or take it over for themselves and/or change its core principles of Trotskyist-Socialism. They framed this  as an attack on the SWP as a whole, by a conspiracy of agitators. I'm not saying everyone bought that, but if you've devoted years of your life to something its easier to face that lie, than a truth that could make it all feel like a waste and a betrayal.



6. New SWP members joining post 'crisis' and unaware of it, should wherever possible be warned of the toxic-culture of the organisation
I'm going to cut this short. I hope based on what you've seen previously its mostly self explanatory.  The SWP has traditionally got a lot of recruitment from young people, especially students newly arriving at uni. These people almost certainly don't know the history, few will look it up, and if any questions are raised those long term members who stayed in the SWP will likely spin it as them doing nothing wrong.  However the organisations leadership, culture, and practices have not changed at all. As such, on an individual level, it is not a safe place to be. Especially for young people and for women.  It is also an appalling introduction to the world of radical politics - ex SWP members I've spoken to echo my belief that a lot of people that join it won't just leave it, they'll leave all radical politics for good such is the likely negative impression. On a wider level its continuing (though much diminished) influence amongst students/radicals/the left, means it's toxic ideas will spread.

7. Other groups have taken a stand both against the SWP directly, and to their fronts such as SUTR. These include feminist groups, anti racist groups, student groups, and other political organisations. What follows are a few examples

Bristol Students Union - Told the SWP Student Society that it needed to make a statement regarding their position on the views, actions and rape apologism of the CC. Revoked their booking for a at the 2013 Bristol Uni freshers fair when they refused to do so.
Edinburgh University [33] & Goldsmiths University Students-[34] enacted a policy of refusing to allow the SWP to speak at or recruit at their events/premises.
Members of Black Lives Matter UK & End Police Violence - put out a statement [35]specifically about SUTR, calling for people to be openly critical of them (as an SWP front) and to effectively boycott their campaigns
Anarcha-Feminist Conference & Black Lives Matter UK & East End Sisters Uncut & others - Put out a joint statement [36]calling on people  not to speak at SUTR conference, and to not allow the SWP to rebuild itself using SUTR.
Bristol Sisters Uncut - Refused an invitation to speak at a SUTR  Bristol event, refused to support event. Put out this statement on their decision. [37]
Bristol University Feminist Society - called for a demo against rape apologism to take place accross the road from the first SWP meeting to take place on Bristol Uni campus following the revelations.
Bristol Anarchist Federation - (of which the author of this text was a member of at the time). Put out a statement in 2013 [38] saying that SWP propaganda, SWP employees and supporters of the SWP-CC were not welcome at  events/demos and would be asked to leave. Explicitly stated that non-paid SWP members who were opposed to the rape apologism of the CC weren't subject to this. It's worth noting, for context, we worked with the SWP and plenty of other groups before this, and continue to work with ex-SWP members to this day. We prided ourselves on being about the most 'non sectarian' group in Bristol in the run up to this statement, regularly encouraging groups from across the left to join in organising demos with us and put their names along side ours on facebook events. We have massive political and tactical disagrements with f'loads of activists (other anarchists, socialists, other communists, each other) but, with this sole exception since our founding, we either work with them on points of mutual agreement, or  ignore them.
So why is it so important that groups take a stand on this issue?  As BLM members state above "‘Some non-SWP organisers may argue that calls for a boycott are divisive, we must be clear that perpetuating political spaces that put survivors at risk is divisive.’" For me the first reason is that the SWP as an organisation, and many of it's long term leaders are both potentially dangerous and have a toxic effect on activism (as said in point 6. above).

On a broader level, it is about how we as activists / members of 'the left' in the broadest sense of the word, want people to be treated. We cannot escape the misogynistic, capitalist world we were born into. It leaves an imprint on us all, no matter how hard we try to shake its effects on our thoughts and actions. We must take active effort if we are to avoid replicating the inequalities of society in general.  Our organisations are similarly vulnerable to this influence, or rather to people who's actions embody the worst of what society and individuals are capable of. People who will commit abuse, harassment, rape... they exist everywhere, including in radical activist groups. If we want to fight this it HAS to be a priority up there with any other actions we take. We need to force ourselves to take it seriously.

Further, our actions send messages to two groups of people. Firstly to the SWP and other groups - is it ok for them to ignore abuse within their groups? Some would (evidently) prefer to. We need to make this impossible. If they won't confront rapists in their midst because it's the right thing to do, then hopefully they will when they realise the alternative is 'what happened to the SWP in 2013'.
Secondly to those who feel vulnerable, who are concerned with their safety or the safety of others around them. WILL THEY BE SAFE WITH US? Are we a movement they can get involved with?

Having a position on the SWP is important because of how important all the attention has made it. Kind of a feed back loop. Its now a sort of bench mark, as its hard to ignore, everyone is forced to think about it sooner or later.  Others will look at the reaction of those around them to the SWP when working out if they are safe and supported.
If we allow the SWP to share a platform with us (even via their front groups), and though our actions support them this sends a mixed message as to our priorities and our commitment to fight all oppression, be it based on race, gender or economics. Some may call the exclusion of a group sectarian or divisive, but NOT excluding them just excludes an entirely different group of people. The latter often being people who have made no 'errors' of their own, and who may already be marginalised by mainstream society.

The left should be a place where people feel welcomed in joining, regardless of their sex, sexuality or any other factor of their background. With the SWP present this is quite simply, impossible. Let's build a diverse movement that shows meaningful solidarity with all who are oppressed, rather than an empty unity based on not causing trouble when 'one of our own' does something awful, whether as an individual or as an organisation.



Sources
[1]http://uaf.org.uk/2013/11/stand-up-to-racism-and-fascism-22-march-2014-marking-un-anti-racism-day/
[2]http://uaf.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/SUTR-march-demo-leaflet.pdf
[3]http://www.standuptoracism.org.uk/wp-content2015/uploads/2016/02/UN-AR-DAY-demo-leaflet.pdf
[4]https://www.facebook.com/events/1092335410814754/
[5]http://www.standuptoracism.org.uk/wp-content2015/uploads/2017/02/SUtR-demo-2017-Mk-iii-3mm-bld-with-uaf.pdf
[6]https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/29739/SWP+conference+debates+the+way+forward+for+the+resistance
[7]http://www.standuptoracism.org.uk/founding-statement-and-supporters/
[8]https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/43907/SWP+annual+conference+++anti+racism+frames+the+wider+issues+in+politics
[9]https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Anti-Nazi_League.html
[10]http://socialistunity.com/sexism-in-the-swp-and-respect/
[11]http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/edl-anti-fascist-demonstrators-clash-bristol/story-20410437-detail/story.html
[12]https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/40112/Anti+fascist+marchers+in+Manchester+defy+calls+to+ignore+racist+EDL
[13]http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1126/hitting-the-jackpot/
[14]https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/43012/Marxism+2016+++we+can+exploit+the+bosses+crisis
[15]https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/44957/Marxism+Festival+2017+++debating+how+to+fight+for+socialism
[16]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSQqLrfG71M
[17]http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/edl-anti-fascist-demonstrators-clash-bristol/story-20410437-detail/story.html
[18]http://socialistunity.com/swp-conference-transcript-disputes-committee-report/
[19]http://howiescorner.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/the-full-appalling-story-of-delta.html
[20]https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/mar/09/socialist-workers-party-rape-kangaroo-court
[21]http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/944/swps-tom-walker-why-i-am-resigning/
[22]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ranks-of-the-socialist-workers-party-are-split-over-handling-of-rape-allegation-8448429.html
[23]http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/944/swps-tom-walker-why-i-am-resigning/
[24]http://theredneedle.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/swp-crisis-opposition-smashed-at.html
[25]http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/resignations-from-sheffield-swp.html
[26]http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/resignation-sussex-brighton-swss.html
[27]http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/statement-of-disaffiliation.html
[28]http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/articles/analysis/16236-why-i-resigned-from-socialist-workers-party-swp
[29]http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/fao-central-committee-of-socialist.html
[30]http://internationalsocialistnetwork.org/index.php/ideas-and-arguments/organisation/swp-crisis/swss-groups/98-manchester-swss-disaffiliation-and-resignation-letter
[31]http://revolutionarysocialism.tumblr.com/post/70922748501/open-statement-resignation-from-the-swp
[32]http://howiescorner.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/the-full-appalling-story-of-delta.html
[33]https://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/eusapolicy/welfare/swpoffcampus/
[34]https://www.goldsmithssu.org/pageassets/yourunion/governance/policies/Disaffiliation-from-the-SWP.pdf
[35]http://www.basepublication.org/?p=438
[36]https://mediadiversified.org/2016/10/06/stand-up-to-rape-culture/
[37]https://www.facebook.com/sistersuncutbristol/posts/274084966342381
[38]https://bristolaf.wordpress.com/2013/10/13/statement-to-the-swp-about-its-rape-apologism/