Proper Gander: The latest celebrity to be accused (2025)

The Proper Gander column from the January 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

Gregg Wallace MBE used to be most well known for presenting BBC One’s MasterChef cookery competition, but now he’s the latest celebrity to be accused of sexual misconduct. By late November, 13 women had made allegations against him, apparently of sexually harassing-type behaviour and inappropriate comments while they were working on various TV shows. Some of these complaints date back years, raising questions about how they were dealt with at the time, and why any abusive behaviour continued.

At the beginning of December, Wallace posted a video on Instagram denying the allegations and saying his accusers were ‘a handful of middle-class women of a certain age’, which surely he didn’t think would calm the situation down. His accusers reacted by criticising him for his dismissive tone, while other journalists and commentators wore the phrase he used as a badge of honour, and also literally on badges, as well as on t-shirts and mugs. Even the government got involved. After Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy met with the BBC’s senior management, a spokesman for the Prime Minister made a statement that Wallace’s comment was ‘completely inappropriate and misogynistic’. Wallace then posted a self-pitying apology for the offence caused by his remarks, technically not apologising for the remarks themselves. Some future editions of MasterChef were dropped from the schedules and Wallace isn’t likely to be getting any other work pending an investigation. Further allegations of groping and indecent exposure followed.

Right-wing pundits such as Simon Webb of History Debunked and Alex Phillips on Talk TV were critical of the importance placed on Gregg Wallace’s actions in the news, above those days’ other events such as Syria’s Assad government losing control of the city of Aleppo. Of course, to complain about the story’s prominence in the news is to add to its prominence. When right-wing commentators criticise the story they are likely to be doing so because they feel that it’s an example of what they would see as the leftist trend of people being overly offended. Leo Kearse’s flippant stance was that targeting Wallace reveals the hypocrisy of left wingers who ignore non-white male perpetrators. Still, you don’t have to be right wing to notice that the story has been especially prominent on the BBC’s news output.

One reason for this is that the BBC wouldn’t want its reputation to be harmed further by giving the impression it isn’t taking seriously allegations against one of its stars. Only a few months earlier, newsreader Huw Edwards, who was usually called on to present coverage of the state’s most prestigious occasions, was convicted of possessing child pornography. Edwards and Wallace have now both joined the list of TV presenters and actors who have been accused of sexually harassing or abusive behaviour to various extents: Russell Brand, Jay Blades, John Barrowman and Noel Clarke, among others. And the BBC – and the media in general – is still shamed by predators such as Rolf Harris, Stuart Hall, Gary Glitter and Jimmy Savile. Residual guilt about some of these abusers being able to continue for years probably also accounts for the BBC appearing to be so open now about accusations against Wallace.

While the actions of these men aren’t equivalent to each other, there is a pattern behind this type of behaviour. Presumably, the high status these people had in TV circles gave them confidence, a sense of superiority over others and the opportunities to act on this. The power imbalance has led to misdemeanours ranging from crass comments to the most abhorrent crimes. The same pattern is found elsewhere in the media, as shown by film mogul Harvey Weinstein being jailed for rape and sexual abuse offences, and the sexism and sexual violence found in some aspects of hip hop and rap culture. Outside the media industry, allegations of sexual abuse by Harrods owner Mohamed Al-Fayed have come to light after his death, having been curtailed during his lifetime by threats of litigation against complainants. He was one of the few rich enough to buy some secrecy, but otherwise, how high profile a perpetrator is tends to equate to how prominently they are reported on, once the story breaks. A famous name attached to sexual misconduct attracts lucrative newspaper sales, social media posts and clicks on websites. The depressingly high number of other instances of sexual harassment and abuse in different workplaces hasn’t been reported on as widely as the scandals in the media industry.

The TUC’s Still Just A Bit of Banter report from 2016 said that more than one in ten women reported experiencing unwanted sexual touching while at work. And in 2020, the government published the Sexual Harassment Survey, which found that 29 percent of people in employment had experienced some form of sexual harassment through their job. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy is considering introducing new codes of conduct for people working in the arts in an attempt to address abuse in that industry, but the problem exists across all sectors and runs deeper than reforms can control. The power imbalance which lies behind instances of sexual abuse is a consequence of the hierarchies which come with employment. The structure of workplaces in capitalism puts people on different levels, with those in higher positions having influence over those lower down. This creates the conditions for people with damaged and damaging attitudes towards women, children or other groups to act in an abusive way. Addressing this problem means addressing the structures in society which enable it to happen.

Mike Foster

Proper Gander: Anti-social media (2024)

The Proper Gander column from the August 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

ITVX’s recent drama serial Douglas Is Cancelled draws on several of society’s current trends to produce an unsettling description of how status impacts on people. Its writer, Steven Moffat, is known particularly for his contributions to more fantastical fare such as Doctor Who and Sherlock. His best scripts carefully guide how much information the viewers and characters have as the story progresses, often by playing around with story structure. Douglas Is Cancelled uses techniques (and actors) familiar from Moffat’s other work, with its subject matter being the television industry itself. Potential viewers are warned that ‘spoilers’ about how the plot is resolved are mentioned below.

The Douglas of the title, portrayed by Hugh Bonneville, is a longstanding TV journalist, co-hosting a popular news programme with the younger Madeline, played by Karen Gillan. A social media post accusing Douglas of telling a sexist joke at a wedding goes viral, leading to concerns among Douglas, his agent, and his producer Toby (Ben Miles), that enough of a negative reaction and suspicions of chauvinism will get him ‘cancelled’. The backdrop of social media being crucial in how we perceive people is a given. Anyone with a profile on X, Facebook, Instagram or TikTok knows they’ve put themselves in an arena where their words are scrutinised and judged publicly, with the stakes being higher for those already in the public eye, such as trusted television news presenters. Even a hint of scandal creates interest, and each repost, comment or like lucratively promotes the social media platform itself as well as whatever’s trending. The combative nature of online discourse is represented in the drama by Douglas’s teenage daughter, sensitive to any kind of perceived offence.

The focus of Douglas Is Cancelled isn’t ‘cancel culture’ though, but the culture of the news media industry. The script contains many cynical swipes at journalism, such as Toby saying of journalists, ‘having opinions about things we didn’t witness is the entire point of our existence’, and Madeline using ‘every dirty trick’ interviewers employ to get to their subject. Key to the plot is when Douglas angrily says ‘the truth needs a little help now and then… our audience wouldn’t understand the truth even if we had the guts to tell it or knew what it was in the first place’. In the context of the story, these lines lead to Douglas’s downfall because of how they dismiss both his audience and his profession, even though he’s right to recognise that journalism isn’t as objective as it pretends. The bias of a mainstream media outlet reflects the prerogatives of its owners, with their ‘truth’ being a stance which both reinforces their own position, however subtly, and less subtly, also attracts viewers and therefore income.

The media’s attitude to the truth isn’t really the focus of Douglas Is Cancelled, though. Its target turns out to be how the industry has mistreated women. Much of episode three is a flashback to just before Madeline secured the job as co-presenter, set in a hotel room where Toby is trying to manipulate her into having sex with him, using psychological tricks to confuse and control her. This thread of the story reminds us of the accusations of sexual harassment and rape made against American film mogul Harvey Weinstein and others, which revealed the extent of abuse in the industry. In the drama, Toby uses the influence he has as an established producer over Madeline, who is made vulnerable by being at the start of her career. He has this influence because of the imbalance of power between his position and hers. Employment, and the hierarchies which it involves, inherently encourages us to objectify people and treat them according to their status in the organisation. Some people, such as Toby and his real-life counterparts, represent how this attitude can lead to the most dehumanising and damaging extremes. The drama doesn’t only highlight how abusers have operated, but also that people like Douglas, who ignored the situation Madeline was in and then made jokes about it, enable the perpetrators. Even though the ‘casting couch culture’ is being exposed and tackled in real life, the conditions which create it remain.

Despite being promoted as a ‘comedy drama’, Douglas Is Cancelled describes a grim, sordid news industry, with relationships shaped by rank within the profession and by the cut and thrust of social media beyond. The similarities to real life situations make the serial very much a product of, and reflection of our times. But behind the modern trappings of social media and anti-social media executives, an old story is being retold. When a workplace, an industry and, indeed a society is structured so that some individuals are in a position of power over others, then the resulting hierarchies allow some people to become abusers. Legislation, policies and procedures aim to prevent and ameliorate harm, but can’t address the structural causes which enable abuse. Employment itself is exploitative, even if when it doesn’t involve people as toxic as presented in Douglas Is Cancelled. The damage caused by and to the characters is expertly acted by the serial’s small cast, helped by a precisely-crafted and perceptive script.

Mike Foster

Action Replay: Abuse of position (2024)

The Action Replay column from the May 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

It started with a kiss, when in August last year the head of the Spanish FA kissed one of the players, Jenni Hermoso, on the lips at the award ceremony for the Women’s World Cup. This led to a great many protests, with the president (who has been the subject of other complaints) being forced to resign, being banned from football activities for three years and then being charged in a court. Except of course that it didn’t start there at all, as women athletes have frequently been subject to discrimination and sexual harassment.

Many women coaches in football, for instance, have encountered prejudice of various kinds, including verbal and physical assaults, and even being completely ignored by the male coach of the opposing team at a match. Only about one professional coach in ten in UK sport is a woman.

Swimming is an area that is particularly problematic. From girl swimmers who have problems with periods during a training session to those who just don’t want to appear in a swimming costume in front of the whole school, young female swimmers can encounter all sorts of difficulties. The appearance of women swimmers can lead to body shaming if they have big shoulders. Last year two Italian TV presenters made sexist remarks at an aquatic championship, describing a Dutch woman diver as ‘big’, adding, ‘They’re all equally tall in bed’.

Women who are swimming just for fun and exercise often encounter sexist behaviour too: being followed into the showers, having their bottom pinched or being leered at from the public gallery, and men swimming slowly in front of them or taking up excessive space,

Prejudice in sport doesn’t just affect women, of course, as male swimmers can also be subjected to remarks about them gaining weight. In football there was an appalling scandal involving sexual abuse by coaches and scouts of young male players, starting in the 1970s. The true scale of this only emerged from 2016, with fourteen men being convicted. However, it does seem to apply to women more often, and girl gymnasts have been starved and body-shamed by coaches, with the ostensible aim of improving their performance, and very many have described physically abusive behaviour,

It’s not just in sport: in education, entertainment, business and so on, people in authority can harass and even abuse those they have power over. All in a society based on hierarchy, with pervasive sexism.

Paul Bennett

Proper Gander: Exploitation at work (2023)

The Proper Gander TV column from the April 2023 issue of the Socialist Standard

When we buy a product, it’s easy not to think about the long journey it has made to reach us, through the combined effort of countless people across the world. A cup of tea often starts out in Kenya’s Great Rift Valley, where its tea leaves are grown and picked before being sent on for processing and packing. The workers who pick the leaves which eventually end up in our morning cuppa tend to be women living close to poverty. Like many in the primary sector, their work on the tea plantations involves lengthy, repetitive shifts for low pay, made even worse for them by a culture where sexual abuse is common.

This was the focus of a disturbing edition of BBC One’s Panorama: Sex For Work: The True Cost Of Our Tea. The documentary investigated plantations in Kenya owned by two British companies – Unilever and James Finlay & Co – which produce half the tea drunk in the UK, sold under brands such as PG Tips, Lipton and Sainsbury’s Red Label. Researchers interviewed a hundred women tea pickers, and as many as 75 said they had suffered sexual harassment by managers at their workplace.

Heading the programme is journalist Tom Odula, but credit should go to the undercover reporter who put herself at risk by applying for work on the plantations. Much of the documentary comprises footage filmed on a hidden camera by ‘Katie’. This shows that women being pushed into having sex with senior staff is rife, despite the problem being recognised at least as far back as 2011. Then, a report was published by the Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations about the extent of sexual abuse in Unilever’s operations, which led to them introducing a new ‘zero tolerance’ policy and reporting system. These are put to the test when Katie applies for a job at a Unilever plantation and gets asked by a Divisional Manager, Jeremiah Koskei, to meet in a bar. There, she records him talking about how they could spend the night at his home, following a pattern described by other women seeking work on the plantation. ‘It felt pretty transactional’ says Katie later. Despite rejecting his advances, she gets employed and is assigned the gruelling task of weeding for up to 10 hours a day, at a rate of the equivalent of £25 for a six-day week. When Katie asks for different duties, supervisor Samuel Yebei sees this as an opportunity to pressure her to sleep with him in return. After she resists, he gives up, and five weeks later she hasn’t been moved to a better role. One of the women Odula interviews says that she was in such a desperate situation that she was coerced into having sex with Yebei to keep her job and then contracted HIV. We’re told that one reason Yebei has got away with his behaviour is that he is close to Koskei, but complaints have been dismissed before they even reach them. When Katie reports them both to the company’s sexual harassment officer, instead of looking into the matter he just advises her to protect herself. While the documentary was being made, Unilever sold its tea brands and fields to a venture capital company, now operating as Lipton Teas and Infusions, which has suspended the two managers pending an investigation.

A similar culture was found in plantations owned by James Finlay & Co, whose tea is sold by Sainsbury’s, Tesco and Starbucks. Odula speaks with a woman (already suffering from an injury from her work) who refused to have sex with a manager in order to get a job, and regrets that her daughters didn’t make the same decision. She reported harassment but hasn’t had a response. Many of the women interviewed name John Chebochok, a recruiter for James Finlay & Co, as a predator. Katie goes to meet him for a job interview, which she is told will be held in a hotel room. There, he says he will give her money and a job if she has sex with him, which escalates to him pinning her against a window before he gives up and goes. After three months of undercover reporting, Katie quits the plantations and receives counselling. Finlays later said it suspended and reported Chebochok to the police, and is now investigating whether its operation has ‘an endemic issue with sexual violence’.

Panorama’s report from Kenya recalls exposés of similar practices in other organisations. Women in Haiti in poorly paid jobs making clothes for American brands were pressurised by their managers to have sex or have their contracts ended, according to an article published by the Guardian (23 June). In Congo, more than 50 women alleged that aid workers, including some from the World Health Organisation, had demanded sex from them to get or keep jobs as cooks, cleaners and community workers during an Ebola crisis (Reuters, 29/09/20). As in Kenya, the poverty the women were living in often meant they had little choice.

The hierarchies which are built into the capitalist structures of organisations put people like Chebochok, Yebei and Koskei in positions of power. And the wider economic system makes people – women who rely on wages from any work they can get, in this instance – vulnerable to being used by this predatory type of man for their own gratification. Because these managers are enforcing the exploitation of the women through their employment, they also feel entitled to exploit them sexually. They see and treat the women as objects because the system creates the conditions in which this can happen. Reforms and a shift in culture may eventually lessen the threat of sexual abuse for women such as those on the plantations, but won’t address the root cause of the problem.

Mike Foster

Proper Gander: Police And Abuse (2021)

The Proper Gander column from the November 2021 issue of the Socialist Standard

Police And Abuse

In September, police constable Wayne Couzens was sentenced to spend the rest of his life in prison for the horrific rape and murder of Sarah Everard. Couzens, employed in the division which guards government and diplomatic buildings, used his position as a police officer to falsely arrest Sarah while she was walking home, under the pretence of breaching Covid-19 regulations. Not long after Couzens’ sentencing, Dispatches documentary Cops On Trial (Channel 4) highlighted the wider problem of police who use their role for twisted motives, in particular their own sexual gratification. Reporter Ellie Flynn interviewed victims of predatory officers, and also looked at research showing the extent of the issue. Requests using the Freedom of Information Act brought in responses from 39 police forces (out of 45 in the UK) stating that in four years nearly 2,000 officers, special constables and PCSOs were accused of sexual misconduct. Bournemouth University also collated 514 proven cases of sexual misconduct by police officers in 33 forces over the last five years.

Couzens’ actions were particularly vicious and didn’t follow the usual pattern found when police officers target women. The research cited in the documentary showed that the most common type of abuse is when an officer uses his role to instigate an ongoing sexual relationship. This tends to happen when a woman reports a crime and is then visited at home by an investigating officer who pretends to be empathetic and understanding while being motivated by his own sexual gains. The perpetrators exploit how their police uniform gives the impression both that they can be trusted and that they have authority. The women they target are all in vulnerable situations: according to the research 40 per cent were victims of previous domestic abuse, 20 per cent had mental health issues and a quarter had suffered sexual assault. The perpetrators find those who are most susceptible to being manipulated, meaning that although the subsequent relationships are apparently consensual, they’re abusive. This inevitably causes the women to be traumatised further, when abuse escalates and when the relationship is exposed and investigated.

While Cops On Trial is timely in highlighting how Wayne Couzens wasn’t alone in misusing his position, it isn’t revealing the problem for the first time. In 2016, a report by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary identified 436 claims of sexual abuse against police officers over two years. Less than half of these incidents were referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission and, as the report worded it, there was a ‘disconnect’ between the numbers of alleged cases and sackings (tinyurl.com/kynyucty). Across Police Scotland, for example, 166 officers have more recently been accused of sexual misconduct, and none have been dismissed. One way which many perpetrators have avoided the consequences of their actions is to resign before they get sacked, which also means they keep their pensions. Those police officers arrested and charged with domestic abuse are a third less likely to be found guilty than other people, with a conviction rate even lower than four per cent. Police know how the investigation procedure and legal system work, and they can use this to their advantage. They can also protect each other, using connections and contacts with the investigators. As Nogah Ofer from the Centre for Women’s Justice points out in the documentary, the system is on the side of the abuser.

One way in which abusive behaviour has been perpetuated has been by other staff missing ‘red flags’ or not taking sufficient action when there are concerns about an officer. According to Bournemouth University’s research, of more than 500 proven cases of sexual misconduct by police, each of the officers involved had an average of six disciplinaries or allegations on their records, and half had warning markers about their sexual behaviour. Couzens had previously been reported for indecent exposure and was nicknamed ‘the rapist’ by colleagues. That these warning signs didn’t lead to action which prevented behaviour from escalating indicates that the police force hasn’t taken risks to women seriously. Susannah Fish, formerly the Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police, says that she worked in a culture which was testosterone-fuelled and macho, and therefore not able to resolve or even recognise the problem.

Unfortunately, Cops On Trial doesn’t spend enough time on the questions of why this culture persists and why some officers use their role to abuse others. Assistant Commissioner Louisa Rolfe, the National Police Chiefs’ Council Lead for Domestic Abuse, gives a succinct enough answer by saying that ‘a small number of people are attracted to policing because of the power, the control and opportunity it affords them’. Police are there to exercise power and control on behalf of the state, according to the laws which are supposed to keep our unequal, divisive society in order. So, even when police stick to the law and the code of conduct for their role, they are working in a framework which involves coercion. The minority of predatory police officers have used this framework as an opportunity to abuse others, and found that it’s enabled them. Tighter vetting, training and disciplinary procedures could weed out some of the predatory officers and prevent some future tragedies repeating what Sarah Everard and other women have suffered. Measures like these will no doubt be recommended by the inquiries which have been commissioned to examine the standards and culture of the Metropolitan Police, where Couzens worked. But reforms can only tweak how the police force runs, they can’t change what it is: an institution with built-in opportunities to exert power and control. So it’s always going to attract a number of people who want to exploit these opportunities for themselves. The more fundamental issue is what causes some people to act in abusive, manipulative ways, a problem much too wide to be affected by any future changes to how the police operate.

Mike Foster

Editorial: A woman’s lot (2021)

Editorial from the April 2021 issue of the Socialist Standard

Every so often a terrible event takes place which reveals the inhuman nature of the capitalist system. In May last year, the killing of George Floyd shone a spotlight on the racism inherent in capitalism. On 3 March this year, the abduction and murder of Sarah Everard, while she was making her way home from a friend’s house in South London, laid bare the misogyny and sexism that is rife in modern society. This triggered an outpouring of anger among women at what they see as a society that engenders violence directed at them. This anger was further fuelled when the police roughly handled women attending a vigil in Clapham Common on 13 March, and by the revelation that the alleged killer is a serving police officer.

In the UK last year 118 women were murdered by men. The pandemic has witnessed a spike in instances of violent abuses. According to a YouGov poll, 86 percent of young women in the UK have said that they have experienced sexual harassment, with 71 percent of women of any age reporting the same (Four-fifths of young women in the UK have been sexually harassed, survey finds, Guardian, 24 March). There have been rises in the incidence of rape. As the perpetrators are invariably male, the focus has been on male behaviour. So there are suggestions that young boys should be educated at a young age to respect women and girls. The government has proposed sending plain-clothes officers into nightclubs and Jenny Jones of the Green Party advocated a punitive curfew on all men after 6 pm. However, none of these measures address the root of the problem.

If we are to combat misogyny and sexism, we need to look beyond individual male behaviour. With the rise of private property society, descent was traced through the male line, which allowed mainly men to accumulate private wealth and become dominant in the emerging ruling classes. The nuclear family, with the man at its head and the woman’s role mainly as mother and housekeeper, became the basic unit of social organisation. As social production moved away from home-based cottage industries to large-scale industry and manufacturing, women’s social power was further eroded. Although women have made advances in the better-paid ‘professional’ occupations and some have become political leaders, women are still disproportionately employed in the lower-paid and less secure jobs and usually earn less than their male counterparts. Under capitalism, women’s bodies have been sexualised through the pornography industry and are frequently used for the promotion of commercial products.

This does not mean that women and men have interests that are diametrically opposed to each other. On the contrary, working-class women and men have more in common with each other than they do with their counterparts in the capitalist class. They are both exploited by the capitalist system.

Therefore, working-class women and men must work together, not to work for palliative reforms that only treat the symptoms of the problem, but to get rid of the capitalist system altogether and establish socialism, where everyone, regardless of gender, can participate equally. A political movement where women are not treated as equals is not a revolutionary socialist one.

Letter: Destructive behaviour (1988)

Letter to the Editors from the May 1988 issue of the Socialist Standard

Destructive behaviour

Comrades.

In reply to Keith Graham's letter in the April Socialist Standard, I agree with him that it is appropriate, and not before time, that the trade union movement take up the issue of sexual harassment at work, but the article which prompted my letter was about sexual harassment between colleagues at office parties. This is a social situation, and about behaviour with which women frequently, at worst comply, or at best excuse. There was no mention of the the "boss". If his/her attention is unwelcome, few contracts of employment insist on office party attendance, the women don't have to go.

However, this suggested analogy of the pensioners being mugged is not "by the same token", no one is passive and compliant about being mugged. Though it might be "by the same token" if the point was that they have all their lives accepted a society in which mugging in various disguises is endemic.

I didn't say that destructive behaviour of individuals should be left to Ben Elton. I wrote that such behaviour is "more effectively dealt with by Ben Elton", the word "more" got lost somewhere between me and the final edition. My point was more specific, if we are going to write about the destructive behaviour of individuals let's not discriminate in favour of, or against, one form. In fact 1 agree, we should deal with all matters affecting our class.

Incidentally, "nailing" was used because it seemed to fit the tone of the original article, and as a metaphor in tune with the time of year.

As to his suggestion in the last paragraph of his letter, perhaps one reason why we are ignored by "different working groups" is that we spend more time in fighting than out propagandering.

   Fraternally,

Janet Carter

Walthamstow

Letters: Were we censored? (1988)

Letters to the Editors from the April 1988 issue of the Socialist Standard

Were we censored?

Dear Editors.

Following the article "Hate and its Causes" (Socialist Standard, March 1988) I noted the comment: "The views in this article are not necessarily those held by Calvert s Press".

My first reaction was "So what!! They're printing the paper, not editing it!" Quite often a printer disagrees with what a paper says. Then, I asked myself: "Why the comment anyway? Are your printers trying to censor the Socialist Standard?"

My second reaction was: "It is very sad, after all this time printing the paper, that they do not agree, particularly as the article is such a clear condemnation of capitalism in Ulster, the "men of violence" and the local politicians who, if anything, tend to make a bad situation worse".

It is also a pity that the printers do not agree with a socialist analysis, since for much of its existence, the Socialist Standard was set up and printed by people sympathetic to socialism — Jacomb, Taylor and even, to some extent. Brocks.

     

     Yours,

Peter E. Newell 

Colchester, Essex

Sexual harassment

Dear Comrades

In the February Standard Janet Carter asks why we attack insecure, immature males for sexual harassment at work, instead of "passive, compliant females who are far greater in number". By the same token, perhaps we should attack defenceless pensioners for getting themselves beaten up by active, young muggers. Sexual harassment is a problem facing many women workers as a direct result of their economic position; if it's the boss touching them up they can't afford to say no. The trade union movement has shown signs of taking this issue much more seriously, and it is entirely appropriate that the Socialist Party should.

To say that the destructive behaviour of individuals should be left to Ben Elton is to miss the point that it is in such behaviour that they reveal their acceptance of existing social relations. If we ignore all the different problems of different working groups, they will continue to ignore us.

     

     Yours for socialism.

Keith Graham 

Bristol