An open letter from the left to the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition Steering Committee against the nomination of Steve Hedley

The labour movement is shooting itself in the foot if it tolerates abuse of women.

Kat - I am not interested in proving anything, either way, about the truth of Caroline Leneghan's allegations against Steve Hedley. I have already said that I have no opinion, either way, about that. What I am interested in is stopping this lie that women have only 6 months to report domestic violence, because believing that would prevent abused women from seeking justice. Again I note that you do not deal with this point. I dare say you are right about Andy Littlechild coming forward though. It is the only decent point you have made in the course of this conversation. Well done! He should be ashamed of himself, though. Lastly, I hope abused women in the left do not come across you, because you will teach them that there is no point in reporting their abusers to the police if more than 6 months have passed since they were assaulted.

Ruth, Andy Littlechild may not have written it? Don't you think he would have come forward to say he hadn't if this were the case? We are supporting someone who has bravely revealed the abuse she suffered at the hands of Steve Hedley and we believe her. You aren't interested in the truth, because you're too busy trying to prove that it didn't happen and you have no evidence for this. If survivors of abuse have to face people like you in the labour movement, it's no wonder it's so rare for survivors to come forward.

You obviously do need me to explain the law to you, because you obviously do not know what it is. The law does not vary between individuals, so it can easily be verified. You can do this at any time and so can anyone else. What is completely unverifiable and entirely without proof is anything on a blog. So that or any other blog can be safely ignored if it contradicts the provable legal facts. There is no proof that Andy Littlechild has written this blog. But even if he has, there is no reason to assume that quotes are taken from a police letter. He could have made them up or altered them to give a better impression or his client, or she could have done so. You give no evidence other than bare assertion and neither did he. The only thing that is independently verifiable is the law and that says that Common Assault means that 'a credible threat of violence' is present, but no actual violence. When there is no violence there can be no injuries, so the quote must be false. However, I have come to the conclusion that you do not care whether it is false or not. If you did, you would have checked my sources and realised this yourself. You are doing no good by this repetition of something so dubious. Indeed you are harming the chances of women who have suffered domestic violence by promulgating a pernicious myth. It is clear that you do not care about this either or you would have addressed the points that I made about the dangers of pretending that women only have 6 months to report domestic violence. As for your other point. Andy Littlechild would have plenty of reason to say anything to clear his client. (Clearly he did not succeed.) What results this might have for him, I cannot say.

Ruth, you insist on explaining the law to me, but I am a law graduate so I don't need you to do this, but thank you. The relevant fact is that a respectable and accountable union rep in RMT quoted directly from the letter, from the police to Caroline. Andy Littlechild is still a union rep and there is no reason for him to lie about the offence the police decided applied in this incident. While you're googling the law, you might want to google the Women's Aid website and find out how rare it is for women to lie about domestic violence.

Kat - I really am a loss to know what you are talking about. ~The definitions of Common Assault etc. are not opinion and they don't rest of my word. They are law, and they are available in a very large number of reputable sources, including the one I gave you and very many others. The quote that you give is from a blog, allegedly written by Caroline Leneghan's rep, containing an unverified quote, from a letter which he purports, that she received. He offers no proof for the veracity of that quote and there are no independent witnesses. How can this possibly be taken as more reliable than a neutral statement (by a firm of solicitors) of what the law of the land actually is? I am being to think that you are a person who actually does not care about the truth. I am even being to think that you may be someone who prefers political point-scoring to actually helping the victims of domestic violence. If this is not so why have to taken absolutely no notice of what I said it the final paragraph of my previous statement? I am also getting a bit tired of you stating that I am calling Caroline Leneghan a 'liar.' I have said that I do not know the truth of her allegations because I have not seen the evidence either way. No reasonable person would see this as calling someone a liar.

Ruth, did you actually listen to a word I said? I could read the definitions of assault, ABH and GBH and it still wouldn't change the fact the police wrote to Caroline to advise that the injuries sustained were of a CPS charging standard of common assault, which is detailed in Caroline's union rep's account, including direct quotes from the letter, from the police to Caroline: https://libcom.org/news/steve-hedley-not-cleared-domestic-violence-case-still-answer-08042013 You are calling a women who is a survivor of domestic violence a liar, because you are saying what she said may not have happened, which is calling her a liar and I'm saying it's very rare for woman to lie about domestic violence.

Wow Kat that's a lot of accusations - but I will try to answer them 1) that I am 'ignorant'. Can I refer you to a solicitor's website www.penmansedgwick.com. You can look at that to check what I am saying is accurate, but I shall summarise it. It is true that there is a time limit for Common Assault. However Common Assault is a very trivial offence which involves the threat of violence but no actual violence. E.g. threatening to set a dog on someone but not actually doing so. Any touching with ill intent is Battery. However Battery does not involve any injuries apart from trivial ones such as a reddening of the skin. An attack such as the one described in Caroline Leneghan's blog resulting in extensive cuts and bruising as shown in her photographs is Actual Bodily Harm, and there is no time limit for prosecuting ABH. 2) That is am 'calling Caroline a liar.' I did not say so. The CPS may decide not to prosecute because the case (although true) could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt in court. Alternatively it might be the case that Steve Hedley is the real victim of domestic violence. I haven't seen the evidence, so I simply don't know. 3) You imply that I am standing in the way of helping women who have suffered from domestic violence. I think the opposite is true and that is in fact what you are doing by making these irresponsible claims in a public arena. Imagine if a woman has suffered from a sustained attack from a violent partner. It takes her 7 or 8 months to get into a place or mental and physical safety. Then she thinks of prosecuting her attacker, but worries that she has left it too late. It would be very natural for her look it up on the web. If she saw this petition and the associated comments she would believe wrongly that there was no use going to the police because more than 6 months had elapsed. This would mean that she was denied justice and her former partner would be free to abuse. Whatever your intentions it would also be pa

Ruth that is an ignorant response. This is what the response was in the letter from the police to Caroline: 'This coupled with the injuries you received being of a CPS charging standard of common assault meant that we have only 6 months from the incident to bring the matter before a Court. This had lapsed prior to initial report.' I think we've established that Caroline isn't a liar. It's also very rare for women to lie about domestic abuse. You have called her a liar about the abuse Caroline experienced, yet there are photos of her battered face and her testimony and then you claimed she lied about the charge, but that quote is taken from the letter to Caroline from the police about this incident.

Sorry Kat 'This type of offence' - one that leaves multiple facial cuts and bruises is 'Actual Bodily Harm' and there is no time limit on prosecuting that, or any other criminal (as opposed to civil) offence under English Law. The idea that Steve Hedley got away with it because of some sort of time limit or Statute of Limitations is completely false. If it had happened 30 years ago, he could still have been prosecuted. If you don't believe me google it up.

Steve Hedley wasn't charged by the Police because the Crown Prosecution Service could not have secured a conviction for assault, because of the 6 month rule for convicting for this type of offence, which unfortunately doesn't take in to account that this type of assault is common as part of a package of gender based violence, which women are more likely to survive. So, there is a problem with the law, not with the woman and brave survivor Caroline. It is outrageous that men on the left use 'feminist', and 'middle class' in a derogatory way against left wing activists fighting sexism, including domestic abuse and rape in the labour movement. Do comrades really think the labour movement is immune from the abuse in wider society? Do these people have no shame? No understanding of what the women's liberation movement did for us? If it wasn't for feminists and what they have fought for, we wouldn't have the level of access to the information we have about women and abuse. It is Unite the Union's policy to teach employers to Believe women when they bravely reveal their abuse, can people in the labour movement ask themselves why a union would have a policy like that?

Anybody who thinks that Steve Hedley is some sort of OK guy who has been misrepresented should visit http://sexxxypolitics.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/my-experience-of-steve-hedley-and.html (and follow links such as the full conversation with Hedley linked to in the comments). As a former Socialist Party member, which Hedley has also been a member of (maybe not now), I am appalled that they have not vetoed his candidacy. Now that the SWP will forever be tarnished by their even more appalling mishandling of the rape allegations against their former national secretary Martin Smith (aka Comrade Delta), with the "trial by his mates" as dubbed by the media, I urge genuine socialists who care about women's rights to join the new broad socialist party Left Unity [Even more worrying, Hedley is standing for general secretary of the RMT, to replace the late Bob Crow. What a field day the mass media would have should he be elected!]

After a thorough investigation Steve Hedley was not charged by the Police and CPS, nor following a further thorough internal investigation by his trade union. This is nothing but a blatant witchunt formulated by his aggrieved ex-partner and promoted by the perverse agenda of a radical feminist minority and pseudo-Trotskyites. The only 'evidence' presented by his ex-partner is some photographs that only prove she was either assaulted or in some kind of accident, it does not prove how or when she substained such injuries. There is howvere a wealth of of evidence that she has participated in a sustained stalking and harassment campaign against Steve Hedley. The link to the blog (sexy politics? really?) is interesting only in so far as you seem to think this is a noteworthy commentary on the matter - it's worth pointing out the blogger has removed all and every one of her comments from the dialogue. Why would she do that? In the context of the full conversation you can see a rather different portrait then the one she is attempting to portray. And even the most cursory examination of further content on her blog finds we are dealing with a highly immature, narcissistic middle-class student who revels in her own victimhood and doesn't seem to have any foundation in the real world. Come back to us when you have something more concrete to say that may merit further consideration. This type of witchhunt has no place in the labour and trade union movement and only serves to weaken the strength and unity of working-class resistance; it also further denigrates the serious campaign to highlight women's issues, domestic violence and the liberation of all from patriarchal oppression.