Talk:Solidarity – The Union for British Workers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Organized Labour, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Organized Labour. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. | |
| If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments. |
Contents |
[edit] Popularity
This article desperately needs information about the popularity and power of the union. Heck, that's the reason I came to this page. :-P
- They are due to send a report to the Certification Officer in the near future and it will contain an indication of numbers. The report (if it is sent) will also be citable as a source. I don't think the leaderships of the normal unions are losing much sleep over Solidarity. 62.7.129.219 21:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
On June 20th, one report [1] (see the first comment) claimed that Solidarity had 100 members.--Ketlan 10:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Since then Harrington and the BNP launched a massive recruitment campaign. They issued leaflets with the BNP members bulletin, organised an email campaign and distributed thousands of leaflets at the Loyalist parades in Belfast and Southport. - Art of War
Harrington has recently stated to the Northern Echo that they have two hundred members. This represents a doubling in quite a short space of time although the Union is still very small. - Art of War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.137.70.194 (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] BNP Front Group Category
I deleted the reference to the above category. Solidarity is not a front group. It is an independent group following its own direction. doublethink
Never mind 'doublethink' - it's clearly factual to state that. On the BNP's own website, a report on the current position of Solidarity states 'Both the BNP and Third Way leadership agree that the most important step forward for Solidarity organisationally is to expand its Executive from three to seven members, with one of the new members from Third Way and three from the BNP' thus giving the BNP (and its ally) the majority vote at all times. The union always was a front group for the BNP and will be for as long as it last (which won't be that long by the way it's going at the moment). Oh and please sign in or at least put a name so we can see who is making these arbitrary and needless changes.--Ketlan 10:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Previous to the EGM which expanded the Union Exec to seven there were three on it. Two, Hawke and Potter, were former or current members of the BNP. If Hawke and Potter are removed from the Exec (as seems likely) it will be interesting to see who replaces them. By your own argument the Union is currently a coalition of Third Way and the BNP rather than a 'BNP front'. When Executive elections are held we will have a clearer picture. There is no evidence to say that the Exec votes along Party lines. Quite the reverse so far! Art of War
Ketlan should know that Solidarity is holding independently scrutinised elections. Any member of Solidarity could have put themselves forward for a place on the Executive or for the position of President or General Secretary. It was advertised in internal bulletins and on the Union website. No one stood against Pat Harrington as General Secretary or Adam Walker as President. They were therefore elected nem con. The favoured faction of Ketlan and LUAF failed to put anyone forward. This was despite the fact that none have so far been subject to disciplinary action. The remaining five Executive places are contested by six candidates. Therefore, Ketlan, it is our members who have ultimately decided who will lead them. Independent and democratic. Oh, and by the way, we are still here and growing. Art of War —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.151.32 (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Management Team links to BNP
Relying on a BNP press statement to find out who runs Solidarity? Shame on you. The Gen Sec is Pat Harrington, President, Clive Potter and Vice-President Tim Hawke. Their constitution makes no mention of a 'Management Team' only industry sector heads and regional organisers. Just take a look at their website!
artofwar
[edit] Popularity
It looks to me like they are imploding. The Solidarity website has stated that someone else has Harrington's job and he is the only one in their leadership with real connections. Whatever they say they rely on BNP and Third Way support and both parties have removed references and links from their websites without explanation. A Nationalist Union without their support is going nowhere. Hopefully they are finished.
Cassandra
It might be worth having a look at these three reports before making any further changes (particularly the third one) [2] [3] [4] --Ketlan 10:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)All the information we have received indicates that the EGM was attended by just fifteen to twenty members - at least we assume they were all members - and a number of heavies, presumably to keep out the riff-raff like the rightful President and Vice-President of Solidarity, Clive Potter and Tim Hawke.
Cassandra should know that Pat Harrington and his team remain firmly in control. The lies of Potter/Hawke/McLinden are being nailed one by one. A full commentary on their 34 page illiterate 'Special Investigation Report' has been published in the archive section of the official Solidarity website (www.solidaritytradeunion.net). Scores of new members loyal to the Union have joined in recent months. Potter has been kicked out of the BNP and his days in Solidarity look numbered too. - Art of War
[edit] Splitters!
The article as it stands fails to reflect the fact that the Solidarity union has split into two mutually hostile factions, each claiming to be the 'real' Solidarity. Amusingly, each faction has its own website, the two looking rather similar, using the same logo and each claiming that the other is 'bogus'. A few months ago I ensured that the external links section included both of these websites, but one of them was deleted without explanation by an anonymous surfer a few days later. The impression I have is that this article has been hijacked by editors supporting of the factions (the one headed by Patrick Harrington) who have done everything to exclude any mention of the other faction. This is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, which aims to reflect current reality and not merely facilitate propaganda by this faction or that. If there are two factions (which, judging by the websites, there are) then the article should reflect that. I have therefore restored the second 'official' website to the External Links section. Obviously, the text needs work too to correct the bias towards the Harrington faction, but I don't have the necessary knowledge and can't really be bothered! Twilde (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Virtually anyone can establish a website. Our Union is looking at legal means of closing down the childish spoof which is an attempt at disruption and misinformation. You have been fooled and maybe others too. This website is not anything to do with 'reality'. Members pay dues into bank accounts under the control of the official Union whose General Secretary I am. Elections for office are held by one Union and only one Union campaigns and represents members. The current situataion is that the 'faction' to which you refer has instructed its seven or eight supporters to cancel their membership payment. They have resigned. As you yourself admit you have little knowledge of our affairs so might I suggest that you are not in a position to edit this page or comment? Might I also say that the website link was in any case broken and I have therefore deleted it without regard to any other argument. Patrick Harrington (General Secretary, Solidarity) (Doublethink64 (talk) 10:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC))
- I suggest you read our conflict of interest policy if you are the real Patrick Harrington. Secretlondon (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I have read it and I've prevented 'passing off' and defamation so am within policy. Thanks. Doublethink64 (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Pat Harrington has obtained a trademark for Solidarity recently so I think he has a point. J Morrow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.137.70.194 (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] References/citations
I've just tidied up the references, so that in the References section they appear as more than just numbers. Also, replaced a dead link with the citation request. However, it seens that most of the references to the Solidarity website do not back up the text as they should - perhaps the website has undergone a major rewrite since the references were made - so they are, in fact, useless. I don't have time to track down accurate refs if they exist - can someone else undertake this or, alternatively, delete any statements that remain unreferenced? Emeraude (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
