Harry's Place

My guess is

indeed it is. but of course, like almsot everything else written about Wallis on here, it’s just an opinion, with no real basis in fact, from someone with a track record if disliking, and thinking the worst of, the UCU, SWP, etc.

let’s have an impartial account of this storm in a teacup, if there is to be any account at all. Nobody on HP Sauce is capable of providing that, though.

publishing his email address on this website is effectively encouraging people to harass him, by the way. mote and beam and all that.

Ahh, it’s the “I don’t remember what I said” line. Beloved of people that don’t want to explicitly refute saying something but don’t want to explain what they are alleged to have said either.

I do think that it is more likely that a man who is an activist in an extremist party will make a racist statement, yes.

So what is Sean Wallis’ reason for not explaining what he meant? Apparently, it is because he believes that it is improper to report the words of a speaker at a public political meeting without following certain court-ordained ‘rules of evidence’.

More practically, he’s a member of a political party where `what was said’ is subject to democratic centralism in order to agree what was really said.

I agree with him up to a point, however: it’s a storm in a tea-cup. The UCU activists list contains people who happily pass on anti-semitic material they got from right-wing conspiracy theorists: so what? It’s not news. We know that UCU activists not merely read the web site of Ku Klux Klan leaders, but believe what they read there, publish it to acclaim and are defended by soi-disant `anti-racists’ when they do, because it’s happened before. Why is it surprising when it happens again?

The positions are fairly clear: the UCU is losing members, especially Jewish members, and outside the fantasies of the SWP-dominated claque who make a lot of noise their much-loved boycott isn’t going to happen. Most academics have better things to do with their time, although overall they’d like their union to be a credible body on pay and conditions rather than the overspill from the sabbatical elections at North London Poly, and ultimately the UCU will either find something else to worry about or collapse.

The lesson here, by the way, to union members is: Entryists. Just say no.

but you don’t even have any concrete proof that he said it. hence your weasely ‘was heard to claim’.

that’s the point he’s making. this is alll just guff, based on your now clearly-stated prejudices, and publishing his email address on here, no matter how easy it is to find online, was effectively an act of harassment.

unless you can be objective about this, you should give it up.

A storm in a tea cup; where have I heard that before?

John Strawson’s comment on Engage sums it up –

‘The truth is the BRICUP has been obessed that “rich and powerful Zionists” were about to use legal action against their boycott efforts from its early days. At the meeting (I was invited to attend) in December 2004 these were the words used by a leading boycotter. The code appears to have changed but the obsession remains. The reason for headling this issue is an attempt to create the impression that any legimate legal action to prevent UCU -or any other body – from adopting and implementing illegal discimination against Israelis on the basis of their nationality – would be tainted by sinister forces. However, the code is played it is the usual mix of unseen power, use of money and of a course a plan (consiacy?).’

“I believe (but cannot recall) that the statement is a misquotation”

Exactly what you’d say if you were trying to cover your arse. Wallis is lying through his teeth and he’s clearly rattled.

“Therefore you are not entitled to (mis)quote me and make imputations about my beliefs.”

Why the brackets around ‘mis’, unless he thinks he really did say it?

“I am very clear about what does and does not constitute evidence of motive in bullying cases. Failure to cease when asked to do so is constitutive of evidence of intent.”

On no account let him off the hook. Keep up the pressure on this blustering bigot till he cracks.

“but you don’t even have any concrete proof that he said it. hence your weasely ‘was heard to claim’.”

That is in itself the weasely defence of one who is guilty but thinks he might get off for want of evidence.

“What a revolting man.”

A cowardly one too. And a transparent one, however much he wriggles.

It’s almost always possible to obtain any academic’s email via a very quick search on google though I do take the point about an invitation to harass and feel uncomfortable about some of the leaks from the UCU activists’ lists where comments have been associated with identifiable individuals – even when I don’t care at all for what these people are saying.

Based on what SW has said since – including the statement above – he surely does remember saying *something* about Lehman Brothers – otherwise he’d simply deny it, wouldn’t he? Has anyone else at the meeting (I assume most of them broadly share SW’s views) claimed that he didn’t say those words – or something very like them?

I have spoken to a person who was at the meeting that Sean Wallis addressed. He says that Sean Wallis did speak the words reported above.

Sean, in a hole, still digging.

Numbnuts – the questions are;

If Sean couldn’t remember having said the phrase attributed to him, why didn’t he say so sooner? no harm in that we’ve all spoken off the cuff and not been able to recall every detail.

If that is the case, then why didn’t Sean just put his hand up and say that while he doubts that he ever would have said such a thing, if someone was offended by what he said, or misinterpreted it, then he apologises.

The problem for Sean is that the memory issue doesn’t help him, because there was someone in the audience that day who clearly feels that their memory of events is sound.

However, and this may reflect my own prejudices, it really seems unlikely that the words attributed to Sean can have too many variations that don’t lead to some awkward conclusions.

Sean,

If you are following this thread, I have to put up my hand and admit I have the transferred Lehman millions-they are sitting in my account at Bank Emunim in Hebron. I also have your kids and come Pessach, they are matzah.

B xx

Wallis doesn’t remember whether or not he made Jew-hating comments. If he didn’t, that’s almost all right, isn’t it, memory plays such tricks? If he did.

“Three weeks on and Sean Wallis has changed his story. Now he claims that he can’t remember what he said. Why didn’t he say this before? ”

He is sliding around like this becasue he can’t be sure somone didn’t record the meeting. He clearly wants to deny saying the comments but daren’t. Sad really, he could easily have avoided all this by making a statement along the lines of ‘I hope I didn’t say any such thing because it would be an antisemtic slur, albeit unintentional, but I was speaking on my feet and it may have come out like that in which case I apologise … however I completely distance myself from etc etc’.

“I have spoken to a person who was at the meeting that Sean Wallis addressed. He says that Sean Wallis did speak the words reported above.”

- GOTCHA!

Wallis and his apologists bleat about the lack of evidence.

But as I understand it, someone heard him say these words. The report of this witness constitutes evidence that he said these words. In a court of law, the witness could report, in a witness statement, having heard what Wallis said.

Wallis says that (I quote) “the position is that I cannot recall the words that I used”.

So apparently, not only is there evidence, but it is uncontested.

Of course, Wallis can seek to discredit the witness, either by impugning the quality of the evidence or the motives of the witness, but that is a different matter from providing contrary evidence.

Or am I missing something?

If Wallis is responsible for a disciplinary process it’s a bit worrying that he doesn’t understand how evidence works.

And Numbnuts, based on what Wallis says and on the motives you read into the posters, you say this is all just “guff” and “harassment”. Do you have the “concrete proof” of this that you require of those who reported what they heard Wallis to say? Of course you don’t. These are just your opinions based on the available evidence, as are the comments that are critical of Wallis. The problem for Wallis is that the available evidence is that he did say what is attributed to him.

“Fortunately for me, I am well-known. My members attest to my character.”

Indeed. ‘Tis just a flesh wound, you Zionist cowards!

“I believe (but cannot recall) that the statement is a misquotation”

Funny – the record shows without fear of contradiction that soon after the event, Wallis did recall making that statement; indeed, not once did he suggest it was a misquotation. Quite the contrary: accepting that the quotation was as it had been reported entailed his first step in attempting to render it innocent (through a series of levers, smoke, pullies, mirrors and rubber bands).

Sadly for him, the levers broke, the smoke dissipated, the pullies slipped, the mirrors cracked and the rubber bands snapped. So Wallis now relies on a new, more desperate strategy. Enough time has passed, he thinks that the fog of that passed time gives him a specious sort of associative excuse for claiming that he “cannot recall” his statement any longer (in contradiction to his earlier acceptance of said statement). The Ronald Regan excuse.

Don’t worry, Sean, there are people only too able to “recall” what you said. And, furthermore, it is on the record that you were, until recently, one of them. Every reasonable observer knows what happened: you made a little quip which you thought was “amongst friends”. Sadly, one of the circle let it leak, and the light it shone onto your Protocols-of-the-Elders-of-Zion mindset was too bright for you to bear. So you starting spinning. And with every turn, you became even more desperate and even less convincing.

What a mendacious toerag. This is no storm in a teacup – it is an example of someone who should have no place in academe.

Maz, I think you would need more than one witness to put a convincing case in law against a defendant. I think its called one word against another. David, is there there more than one witness to corroborate what he is alledged to have said?

“Sad really, he could easily have avoided all this by making a statement along the lines of ‘I hope I didn’t say any such thing because it would be an antisemtic slur, albeit unintentional, but I was speaking on my feet and it may have come out like that in which case I apologise … however I completely distance myself from etc etc’.”

John, he cannot apologize. Because if he does, someone even more extremist than him will say that he has apologized to his masters, the Elders of Zion, and Wallis wouldn’t have street cred anymore.

“Maz, I think you would need more than one witness to put a convincing case in law against a defendant.”

Is Wallis being prosecuted, or threatened with prosecution?

blackprince29 – I agree with you. But it’s not a case of one word against another, Wallis (now) says he can’t remember, not that he didn’t say it or or that he said something different. In a legal sense, he is explicitly saying that he has no evidence to give – he can’t remember! He just offers an unsubstantiated opinion that the witness misheard him. But there is only one set of evidence.

I agree that in a legal case relying only on one witness would be weak. But that’s an argument about the QUALITY of the evidence. Wallis is arguing about the EXISTENCE of evidence, without understanding that there IS evidence, and how the evidence works in this case, i.e. completely against him.

Of course none of this is being done in a court of law. But Wallis seems to be demanding quasi-judicial standards in the debate about what he says, which invites comments on the way he describes an evidential process.

“John, he cannot apologize. Because if he does, someone even more extremist than him will say that he has apologized to his masters, the Elders of Zion, and Wallis wouldn’t have street cred anymore.”

I think it’s more to do with, inter alia, an “anti-racist” UCL UCU rep shouldn’t make a tit of himself by identifying alleged (Zionist Jewish?) funders of anti Israeli-boycott lawyers or campaigners with (the, deceased) Lehmann Brothers on the basis of…what? Their “Zionist” sounding name?

“Of course none of this is being done in a court of law.”

The implied legal threats emanate from Sean.

First we had “The Wallace Maneouvre” , then “The Wallace Maneouvre , version 2″ and now”The Wallace Maneouvre , version 3″

Woops – Wallis , not Wallace !

Shachtman, it’s called tying yourself up in knots.

In my experience, Sean Wallis has consistently denied and opposed concerns about antisemitism which cannot be incorporated into his class struggle against the political right. Despite his correct and responsible decision to vote at Congress according to his branch’s wishes (this is more than my branch reps have undertaken), he himself has categorically denied the presence of antisemitism in his boycott campaign. That he thinks a word of denial from him constitutes a rebuttal is in keeping with everything I’ve read from him on this subject. He writes with authority that far outstrips his actual authority. It’s very hard to argue with somebody like that, so I’ve stopped.

Just one more thing – I and others been called all sorts of things on the UCU activist list for taking a position against the boycott while he attempted to police the debate by protesting about impoliteness when an anti-boycotter got too upset to mince their words. Most of the stress I’ve experienced over the past few years has been because of UCU’s boycott campaign and the antisemitic ways in which it was pushed. Sean is a plentiful contributor to the activists list, but I don’t remember him showing any concern about this aspect of bullying and harassment. I think his bullying and harassment radar, like his memory, is poor.

Karma’s a bitch even in Wallyworld.

“This motive is pretty explicit in the allegations reported in the Jerusalem Post [...]”
“to discredit the UCU by association.”

Those dastardly Jews. Look at them conniving to use to their own devious ends perfectly innocent statements about how they’re controlling the world!

“I am very clear about what does and does not constitute evidence of motive in bullying cases. Failure to cease when asked to do so is constitutive of evidence of intent.”

????????? WTF???

So let’s use an example.

Sean Wallis nicks my lunch money. I challenge him on this. He does not deny that he nicked my lunch money but dispute “what he meant by it”. Later he insists that I should refrain from challenging him about him nicking my lunch money. If I continue to challenge him on it, I’m bullying him???

Can anyone else make any sense of SW’s position here?

Cleanthes: indeed, it is typical of bullies to try to deflect their nasty bullying nature onto others. Your example is good. Another example, which also fits Wallis’s definition of “bullying” is thus:
Wallis punches John in the face.
John complains about this violent act.
Wallis tells John to stop complaining.
John is in pain and continues to complain.
Wallis whines that John is “bullying him” in his continuing to complain, even though he was told to stop.

Sean Wallis:

“I believe (but cannot recall) that the statement is a misquotation. I think that they likely misheard what I said.”

Lucy Lips, you are doing a great job, but all I can say is where’s Fox TV’s Judge Judy when we need her? If he said he couldn’t really remember if he said uttered anything connecting Lehman Bros accounts, lawyers and the funding of the opposition to the boycott of Israeli academics that Wallis and other “activists” in the UCU are promoting, she’d tell him she didn’t believe him and ridicule him for willing making an idiot of himself in front of 10 million TV viewers.

Talking of bullying in the union:

http://www.thejc.com/articles/union-blocks-friends-israel-stall

Union blocks Friends of Israel stall
Follow us on RSS

MOST READ TODAY

*
Rich City are good for soccer
*
Radical Islamists must be exposed, not invited to tea
*
Union blocks Friends of Israel stall
*
Stamford Hill blasts postcode ‘boycott’
*
Anti-Israel violence erupts across world

From The Jewish Chronicle
Leon Symons
June 11, 2009

Follow the JC on Twitter

The trade union Unison has rejected a request by Trade Union Friends of Israel (Tufi) to run a stall during its annual conference in Brighton next week.

However, the union gave different reasons for the ban. Tufi has been told that the rejection was because of Israel’s action in Gaza and complaints by regional members. But a Unison member who spoke to deputy general secretary Keith Sonnet was told that as the union was having three Palestinian-run stalls, there was no room for Tufi.

The member, Linda Baharier, said: “This was a supposedly democratic union stifling free speech and I told Keith Sonnet that this was discriminatory. They might have had complaints, but I also know members who will make complaints about this decision.”

Ms Baharier said she had contacted lawyer Anthony Julius, who has acted for members of the University and College Union to deflect a threatened academic boycott of Israel. “Mr Julius said he would look into this,” she said.

Tufi has manned a stall at the Unison conference for the past four years. But this year the union’s executive told Tufi director Steve Scott that it had decided not to allow the stall because of Gaza “and, they said, for our own safety”. Mr Scott said: “At first they made excuses, then they said it was an executive decision after they had complaints from members in the regions about Gaza. We issued a statement about Gaza but obviously we didn’t condemn Israel’s actions, so they said we should not be exhibiting this year.

“They told us that if we had a problem with the decision we should complain. So we have written to Dave Prentis, the general secretary, and another executive member, Alison Shepherd, but I doubt that anything will change.

“The Palestine Solidarity Campaign is affiliated to Unison so they would have stalls there. But every year we’ve been there, there have been stalls carrying anti-Israeli material. One year, a person wore a Hizbollah T-shirt.”

Mr Scott said Tufi would hold a fringe meeting on June 17, the conference’s third day.

A spokesman for the Fair Play Campaign said: “Unison has acted shamefully by banning Tufi from its conference. It supports peace and works with Palestinian trade unions, but it seems that Unison just doesn’t care. As in the University and College Union, the boycott movement is targeting supporters of Israel and trying to drive them out of the trades union movement.”

Bill Gilby, the union’s conference organiser, said he would not describe Tufi’s absence as “a ban”. He said his conference team had received “an expression of concern” at the possibility of Tufi being offered a stall, “because of the union’s long-standing policy position on the Middle East and concern about the welfare of individuals if such a stall were to be there”.

In previous years, claimed Mr Gilby, “Tufi had a stall at our conference and sometimes they didn’t even turn up.”

I suspect Mr Wallis is terrified of stating clearly that he did not use those words in case after he has made a denial, a recording makes a miraculous appearance…..

Instead of writing a long letter about being misquoted, why doesn’t Sean Wallis simply say what he really thinks? Long practise in the art of lying?

I look at the ‘ aesthetic’ sense and texture of prose. There isn’t a glimmer of humanity in his letter whereas there is in the comment that follows.

Lucy Lips, in my opinion, has correctly accused Sean Wallis of being a “revolting man.” We can go further, the SWP, is a revolting party and its members are nasty and revolting. A pleasant person and a SWP member is an oxymoron. The United Kingdom will be a better place when the SWP and the BNP are completely smashed.

This guy is almost as stupid as Jeremiah Wright :

Rev. Wright: I Meant to Say “Zionists” Are Keeping Me from Talking to President Obama — Not Jews

Wright said “I’m not talking about all Jews, all people of the Jewish faith, I’m talking about Zionists.”

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/rev-wright-i-meant-to-say-zionists-are-keeping-me-from-talking-to-president-obama-not-jews.html

“Jews” – “Zionists” – a mere slip of the tongue obviously.

‘I have to find that the failure to put the allegation to me given the opportunity to do so is evidence of motive

-that this was not an act of reportage but a deliberate attempt to discredit me personally by people with an ulterior motive – to discredit the UCU by association.

This motive is pretty explicit in the allegations reported in the

Jerusalem Post, see http://tinyurl.com/ponmnn .

……………………..

…..is a smokescreen for the fact that your colleague(s) did not put the allegation to me at the time. ………………

Fortunately for me, I am well-known. My members attest to my character. No-one who knows me thinks there is any merit in the allegation. ………

Colleagues on the activist list have commented privately that they feel that this is an attempt to deliberately intimidate them into not speaking out……………

Uh huh Mr anti-Zionist of unimpeachable charater (as his friends and colleagues will attest to) is being accused of antisemitism by those with a motive to discredit him as an anti-semite as reported in the Jerusalem Post.

Further more this accusation is clearly a smokescreen and an other or other persons are involved (colleagu(s)) in what privately other colleagues of Sean Wallis on the UCU activist list (who are planning to introduce an illegal boycott of Israel and Israelis) believe this is an attempt to deliberately intimidate them into not speaking out [about the illegal anti-Israeli policy they wish against legal advice to pursue].

OK Sean Wallis you believe someone or some people are out to discredit you (as reported in the Jerusalem Post) a campaign of intimidation.

I wonder who you think who they might be?

“Jews” – “Zionists” – a mere slip of the tongue obviously

He meant Jews. And any Jews, Zionist or otherwise would do. Otherwise he would have said Zionist in the first place — unless he can’t be bothered to tell them apart.

Jerry and Sean can sleep in the doghouse with Letterman, who effectively did the same thing, tonight (and, no, I’m not a Palin).

“Bill Gilby, the union’s conference organiser, said he would not describe Tufi’s absence as “a ban”. He said his conference team had received “an expression of concern” at the possibility of Tufi being offered a stall, “because of the union’s long-standing policy position on the Middle East and concern about the welfare of individuals if such a stall were to be there”.”

Is Gilby suggesting that Unison has no reasonable security responsiblities when they put on an annual conference? Who are they opening attendance up to — biker gangs?

It strikes me that at least two Israeli Arabs have stated publicly that the pro-boycott sentiment is a manufactured one that doesn’t even exist in the West Bank, Gaza or Israel.

One is the Israeli consul general to California + Pacific NW, Ismail Khaldi speaking against Israel Apartheid Week earlier this year and the other, journalist Khalid Abu Toameh, more recently, at a conference about tolerance and the Islamic world held at the Palais des Nations during the Durban Review Conference:

KAT:
Now as I said, for the past eight years I have been working for The Jerusalem Post and one of the questions that people often ask me is, “why are you working for a Jewish paper? Aren’t you seen as a traitor because you work for a Jewish paper?” I tell people “absolutely not.”

There has never been a decision by the Palestinians to boycott the Israeli media. The only talk about boycott comes from American and British university campuses.

Take time to read his entire address: http://www.hudsonny.org/2009/05/islam-today-1.php

“And I am not talking about Zionists, I am talking about rich Zionists.”

“Sorry, I am not talking about rich Zionists, I am talking about rich Zionists with evil designs.”

Etc, etc, ad NAUSEAM!

Because nausea is what people like Wright and Wight produce in me.

“and concern about the welfare of individuals if such a stall were to be there”.”

Why? Do some Arabs plan to murder the Jews at the stall, and UNISON doesn’t want to be seen applauding from the side?

“I am very clear about what does and does not constitute evidence of motive in bullying cases. Failure to cease when asked to do so is constitutive of evidence of intent.”

I don’t live in Britain and so don’t know how the SWP operates. But if they’re anything like the extreme left clowns here in Canada, they routinely “fail to cease when asked to do so,” and one might say that the SWP-UCU leadership is bullying its own union, as it fails to cease pushing this doomed boycott effort despite being asked — and legally advised — to do so. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! What chutzpah!

“publishing his email address on this website is effectively encouraging people to harass him, by the way”

Crap. You can find his email address on the UCL website. That’s what I did. Now, fuck off, Sean.