15/05/09
by

Workers’ Party: WTF

VUWSA President Jasmine Freemantle has officially been expelled from the Workers’ Party, who sent out this press release yesterday:

Workers Party Statement on the expulsion of Jasmine Freemantle

Current VUWSA President Jasmine Freemantle has been expelled from the Workers Party. Freemantle contested the VUWSA election last year on a Workers Party platform. Since then, however, she has acted entirely as an individual rather than abiding by Workers Party policies and decisions.
A number of Workers Party principles have been breached, most particularly around the VUWSA Staff Collective Agreement which she drew up and which represented an attack on VUWSA employees’ rights, and around her role on Anzac Day where she failed to support action by WP members. In the case of Anzac Day, while she failed to consult in any way with the Party, she consulted with the RSA, seeking their endorsement of motions for a Student Representative Council.
Her actions indicate outright rejection in practice of basic WP – and basic left-wing – principles.
The WP first suspended her from membership due to the VUWSA contract and her failure to act as a WP member. After the Anzac Day events, she was expelled by a unanimous vote in the Wellington branch.
Since she was elected as president of VUWSA running on the WP platform, we believe she should resign from her position of President of VUWSA and seek re-election on her own record and platform.

Jasmine wrote an 8271-word blog post in reply here.

The post provides an interesting insight into Jasmine’s personal and political life. It also delivers a shocking account of VUWSA and the Workers’ Party.

For those who care about student politics—especially recent developments at VUWSA—it is a must read.

Salient has used Microsoft Word’s AutoSummerise function (set to 4%) to glean the important facts from the piece:

According to WP National Organiser Philip Ferguson:

VUWSA Presidency

The WP has had members on the student Executive at Victoria University since 2002. Joel ran out of the meeting. Marika was of course one of the 3 other WP members elected to the 2009 VUWSA Executive. Nowadays Joel busies himself interviewing VUWSA staff members in a pathetic attempt to compile dirt to pass on to WP members and Unite.

Actually I am the employer of the VUWSA staff, as were the previous WP members who served a term as VUWSA President.

Anyway, Joel and various WP members turned up to VUWSA’s SRC on 6 May, where Joel proceeded to read out a brief statement on behalf of the WP on the subject of Anzac Day. Not long after, Joel and other WP members set fire to the New Zealand flag.

I will not be resigning as the VUWSA President.

In an interesting twist, Joel Cosgrove (the same one who was the president last year, wore the penis t-shirt, smells funny, burnt the flag etc etc) sent this email out to the Workers’ Party mailing list:

To: ACAXXXXXX@XXXXX.com
From: joel.XXXXX@XXXX.com
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 12:26:16 +1200
Subject: Re: [ACA-activists] Draft Press Release: Expulsion of Jasmine

My suggestion is that we put it on Indymedia and leave it there. Salient
will find it, but I don’t want them being able to make any sort of
ownership of the ‘scoop’. Salient is not the paper of students and we
shouldn’t see it that way. Right now there are thousands of Salients
outside VUWSA, as no one is reading it this year, even though it’s free.
We owe them nothing.

Wow. Just wow, Joel. If anyone who reads this thinks Salient isn’t representing students then come talk to me. WP members included.

This is a serious case of bad communications management. In case you guys hadn’t noticed, Salient is pretty much the only media outlet that pays these muppets any attention. Why? I’m actually beginning to wonder that myself.

Also, Joel’s claims that there are thousands of Salients outside VUWSA is an outright fib. There are definitely fewer than 1000 copies there. Mainly a collection of our first nine issues—there because I am too lazy to bring them up to the office… Oh, and so students can grab copies.

Sadly for Joel, our readership and pick-up rate of both the print magazine and website is way up on the last two years. One pales at the predicament Salient would be in were he editor.

No doubt we’ll hear more about this communist cluster fuck. Jasmine seems to have turned commenting off on her blog, so feel free to comment here.

About the Author ()

The editor of this fine rag for 2009.

Comments (90)

Trackback URL / Comments RSS Feed

  1. mikey says:

    Choice… Joel… you got burnt

    “In case you guys hadn’t noticedSalient is pretty much the only media outlet that pays these muppets any attention.”

    lol

  2. Laura McQuillan says:

    I’m surprised that Jasmine allowed the Workers Party to discuss and make resolutions on VUWSA – I was under the impression that the individual, rather than the party, is elected to run VUWSA. And I hope Salient and students challenge her on this.

    Some of the information in her blog is also very interesting regarding photocopying, which should have been made public when it happened.

    I’d like to see a response from Joel Cosgrove (and Sonny Thomas) on Jasmine’s allegations, and whether they are true.

  3. I wonder if the Workers’ Party realises that, as VUWSA president, Jasmine is more accountable to Victoria’s 25,000 students than she is to the 500 (nationwide) Workers’ Party members.
    Also, the fact that Jasmine has been expelled while Joel Cosgrove stays on just astounds me.

  4. Daniel J Miles says:

    This constitutes a significant compliment to Jasimine, as far as I can tell. I’m tempted to join the Worker’s party just so I can put “expelled from the Worker’s Party” on my CV.

  5. Steve says:

    Wow. They’ve lost my vote at the next general election. That brings them down to 3 votes now, right?

  6. Matthew_Cunningham says:

    Well done Jasmine, I say. The immature and hypocritical actions of the Workers Party are the clearest sign yet that, for the first time in a long time, we have a VUWSA President who is not willing to coopt her position to a rigid ideological doctrine.

    Matt.

  7. Electrum Stardust says:

    Of course VUWSA should represent the entire student body, rather than just a few aspiring ‘future politicians’. VUWSA must not be hijacked by only a small clutch of biased (one way or another) individuals or “parties” who are just more ‘motivated’ (than ordinary students) to get involved in the ‘politics’ (using that term loosely), so as to further their own agendas and interests at the expense of non-aligned students.

    VUWSA is for students, not ‘politicians’!

  8. mikey says:

    The real one…. whatever.. I was the first one here bud

  9. I’ve been around longer though… anyway, just wanted to establish that there’s two of us. You can be the real one if you like. :D

  10. Tom says:

    Well done Jasmine, it’s about time we had this organisation well run and managed. It just shows that a VAWSA President can show professionalism by having different political views but do what is best as president for their organisation.

    As for Joel and his WP, Time to grow up kids. Get a real job. Maybe VAWSA should expel you, now that would be awesome. Joel has put our association into disrepute so many times, it’s just a F***ing annoying.

  11. Daniel says:

    Jesus fucking testicle-kicking toe-tapping Christ. No-one voted for Freemantle because she was a workers party member – the fact that she was a member probably lost her more votes.

    Well done to Joel on his Feslier too.

    It’s quite amazing to see an organisation with it’s head so far up it’s arse that it doesn’t even know what it stands for any more.

  12. Ian Anderson says:

    The main thing was about the right to strike. We’re not bound by the ERA, law is a matter of precedent, and the right to strike has often been won illegally. Unite was also willing to take that particular struggle on if the case arose. WP put that to Jasmine and she stuck by the claim, along with many other restrictions on VUWSA staff.

    Unrestricted right to strike is in the WP platform, which was democratically ratified when she was a member.

  13. goku_karori_28 says:

    heh smirk think you know anarchy, worker’s party?

    have you ever endured the anarchy of having your army of imperial guard slaughtered by a stack of unpainted chaos forces?

    smirk, i thought not.

    wake me up when you’ve painted your necromander of revolution, cosgrove

    heh, smirk, etc.

  14. Skins de'Slick says:

    Smoooooth.

    Jasmine, baby, listen. Unhook that hammer and sickle and come sit yourself down by the fire with Skins. Skins de’Slick knows how hard you work, sugar. Skins himself was a candiate in the bi-election of love. Yeah baby, bi-election. Skins doesn’t deny entry; Skins is for love.

    Skins de’Slick wants you to remember that even when Joel Cosgrove runs his oily fingers along his unshaven shaft of socialism, Skins is always here with something smoooooth. The dollar works in mysterious ways; Skins knows the value of a dollar… if you hollah.

    Smoooooooooooth

  15. Laura McQuillan says:

    Ian: Why should the Workers Party have any role in the running of VUWSA?

  16. Ian Anderson says:

    The question we’re asking is why we should support a member of the party, in an elected position, who’s actively hostile to the WP and its policy platform.

  17. Hank Scorpio says:

    So, she needs to be all Workers Party all the time, 24/7, even when operating within a role that has motherfucking nothing to do with the Workers Party?

    You clowns are so irrelevant.

  18. Matthew_Cunningham says:

    Ian Anderson:
    “The question we’re asking is why we should support a member of the party, in an elected position, who’s actively hostile to the WP…”

    First of all, i’ve seen no signs at all that Jasmine is acting in a fashion that could be considered ‘hostile’ to the Workers Party. If anything, the attitudes and actions directed against Jasmine as described in her blog seem far more hostile than anything she has done. Whilst I am aware that the blog is just Jasmine’s perspective, the *direct statements and phrases* she has quoted indicate a very hypocritical, immature, and unrealistic stance on behalf of many WP members.

    “…and its policy platform…”
    Firstly – it is fair enough that the Workers Party take issue when one of their members act in a fashion which could be considered as opposing their core philosophies. However, judging by Jasmine’s blog, her stance over the ERA was shared by several members of the Workers Party and actively endorsed by others. Will all of these people be given the boot as well?

    Secondly – would you consider the strictly conditional support that the WP gives one of its members, combined with its strident call for said member to resign from a post that is outside of its jurisdiction, a perfect analog for what you termed ‘imperialism’ in our previous discussion? To elaborate: you made the following statement on imperialism: “I don’t think it’s imperialist to support movements in another countries. I think it’s imperialist to get involved in their governance to serve your own national interests.”

    (http://www.salient.org.nz/news/ex-vuwsa-president-burns-nz-flag)

    Cheers, Matt.

  19. Gibbon says:

    Damn you Matt, you picked up on my exact point. Curses! Gibbon is foiled this time.

  20. Magonagal says:

    This is like something from a Monty python skit. classic “I’m more left than you” p*sh from student politicians. This is where all the poor behaviour in Parliament is learned. name-calling instead of reasoned debate. Each little marxist/trot/lenin/mao party dividing and splitting like amoeba. It’s just so funny but tragic at the same time.

  21. Ian Anderson says:

    “her stance over the ERA was shared by several members of the Workers Party and actively endorsed by others.”

    No, it was endorsed by lawyers outside the party. Nobody in the party supported her position, with the arguable exception of Nick, who has resigned from the branch.

    “Secondly – would you consider the strictly conditional support that the WP gives one of its members, combined with its strident call for said member to resign from a post that is outside of its jurisdiction, a perfect analog for what you termed ‘imperialism’ in our previous discussion?”

    No, because she is a member of the party. If you’re part of a democratic centralist group, you have the right to dissent along with the obligation to promote democratically ratified policy. There’s a difference between internal and external expectations; the WP is clear that we do not dictate how Third World revolutionaries conduct their politics. So, for example, we do not cry that the Nepalese Maoists have failed because they support restrictions on the right to strike; it’s not our place. Where WP members are concerned, it is our place.

    Mostly I think this is a conflict over the contradictory nature of WP involvement on VUWSA, but this position is not shared by all party members. The main thing here is that we have some pretty basic, ratified policies and they haven’t been maintained.

    Anyway, retiring again, because this whole fiasco is depressing and I’ve got assignments waiting.

  22. Amy says:

    Sure, they can kick her out of the WP if they like (oh noes!), but where do they get off insisting she should resign from VUWSA? From the Salient candidates’ interviews BEFORE the election, when asked “Will you be able to separate your personal political affiliation with your role as the VUWSA President?”:

    “It’s about VUWSA. I’m not at VUWSA as President representing the Workers Party. I’m at VUWSA as President, representing VUWSA and representing students.”

  23. Matthew_Cunningham says:

    Ian Anderson:
    “”would you consider the strictly conditional support that the WP gives one of its members, combined with its strident call for said member to resign from a post that is outside of its jurisdiction, a perfect analog for what you termed ‘imperialism’ in our previous discussion?”

    No, because she is a member of the party.”

    The call for Jasmine to resign from her position as VUWSA President was not made until after she had been expelled from the Workers Party. This negates your argument about “the obligation to promote democratically ratified policy”, and instead indicates an attempt by the Workers Party to force its agenda on an area outside of its jurisdiction.

    Bask in September last year, Jasmine stated the following about her campaign:
    “I can separate [my political beliefs] from the presidency. I don’t go into my classes and say, ‘Hey, vote Workers’ Party!’ and hand out my propaganda. Obviously being a member of the Party shapes the way I view things. I would of course endorse VUWSA policy. Anything that goes contrary to that, it doesn’t matter.

    It’s about VUWSA. I’m not at VUWSA as President representing the Workers Party. I’m at VUWSA as President, representing VUWSA and representing students.”

    This is a clear indication that her tenure was in no way meant to be a broadcasting podium for Workers Party ideology. Any attempts to backwards-engineer it as such by members of the WP is erroneous and misleading.

    “If you’re part of a democratic centralist group, you have the right to dissent”

    Actually, according to Lenin you do not; once a decision has been made in a workers’ council higher in the democratic centralist hierarchy than yours, you are obliged to comply with it regardless of whether you agree with it or not. Almost makes ‘democratic centralism’ sound like an oxymoron, really.

    Cheers, Matt.

  24. mikey says:

    Shit.. I think that the WP think its a gig deal kicking someone out…

    gees… That is soooooooooo terrible.. no.. please…

    Bunch of sexist muppets

  25. Ian Anderson says:

    OK, one small thing.

    “Actually, according to Lenin you do not; once a decision has been made in a workers’ council higher in the democratic centralist hierarchy than yours, you are obliged to comply with it regardless of whether you agree with it or not. Almost makes ‘democratic centralism’ sound like an oxymoron, really.”

    Dissent is allowed internally, before a decision is made; after that, members adhere. We don’t rigorously abide by Lenin’s approach, especially not the primacy of central committees, but on that point we do.

  26. Superior Mind says:

    I’m kind of shocked that the Worker’s Party seemed to believe they had a political puppet in Jasmine; someone who would work towards the interests of the Workers Party, (whatever the fuck it is they stand for,) instead of the interests of students. Did you think she was voted in because we all loved the idea of another Worker’s Party stooge fronting VUWSA? After Joel? You’ve got to be kidding!

    I’m also shocked to compare Jasmine’s… whatever the Hell she’s being expelled for, to Joel’s conduct last year. Effectively stealing money? Acting like a twat? Not actually doing the job he was elected to do? Penisgate? Those kind of things are all A-OK with the Workers Party yet Jasmine’s… whatever the Hell she’s being expelled for, is not?

    You guys confuse the fuck out of me. I hope Jasmine sees this expulsion as the gift it is rather than a punishment.

  27. Puppykins says:

    The Workers Party are a fucking joke. I have nothing against socialists, I’m not one to go around teasing them for calling each other ‘comrades’ like many people do, but it just goes to show how desperate and STUPID they are. what i dont understand is why we all seem to care so much about what they do and say?

    So unfortunate considering Jasmine and her exec are the most competent we’ve had in years – they heard the call for accountability and answered it. i’m astounded at how well they’ve done this year. please keep it up!

  28. hippoescrates says:

    The interesting thing is that although Jackson is probably wetting himself over this whole sorry saga he is a member of the VUWSA staff collective cause Jasmine is his employer, hmmm I wonder if he 100% agrees with Jasmine’s collective agreement or stands with the rest of the VUWSA staff against Jasmine’s tyrannical office reign and slashing of working conditions? Just wondering…

    As far as I am concerned after reading all of this Jasmine comes across like a really angry and intimidating ball breaker, she of course must be 100% right and the WP wrong…

    Superior Mind it seems she is being expelled for being a bureaucratic neo liberal who acts like a CEO instead of a Socialist (i.e for treating her staff like crap)

  29. lol says:

    lol your a cunt lol

  30. C3P0 says:

    And LOL you are an idiot.

  31. lol says:

    lol i believe it is lol ‘your’ an idiot lol jeez get your insult grammar right lol… lol

  32. lol says:

    lol there was a loser from genis lol
    lol he had an inflatable penis lol
    lol he looked down with shock lol
    lol pulled the cork on his cock lol
    lol and said hey look im joel cosgrove.

    lol.

  33. Superior Mind says:

    From what I’ve seen and heard the Worker’s Party hasn’t exactly shown itself to be the epitome of logic and reasoning. If I have to accept either their word or Jasmine’s I’d probably take Jasmine’s. Then again I’d probably take anyone’s word over the word of an organisation that protects someone like Joel Cosgrove.

    The Worker’s Party seems to have no clue exactly what it is they stand for and what their policies are, at least that’s what their actions suggest. Sure they may have a general idea but to expel someone for not conforming to their policies, (a matter of some debate in my opinion,) seems a bit confused to me.

    Also I hope this is not too much to ask but can the Workers Party, (aside from current elected members of the VUWSA,) please get the fuck out of VUWSA matters? That includes keeping Joel fucking Cosgrove on a tight leash. Preferably in a cage at the bottom of a deep hole. Fill it in or don’t, just make sure no-one falls in.

  34. Adam Goodall says:

    I didn’t realise that every single student at VUWSA was a committed socialist who wholeheartedly supported the Worker’s Party and all their sanctimonious bullshit infighting and hypocrisy. Because that’s the only reason I can see for the Worker’s Party to attempt to run the Students’ Association, an association committed to representing the Victoria University student body, and then throw their toys out of the pram when they couldn’t.

    Also of note – while I still despise the Worker’s Party, I find it hilarious that the WP have excommunicated from the party a VUWSA President who was actually rebuilding their image with at least showing that socialists can separate their party politics from representing the people, while they openly praise the actions of a VUWSA President almost everyone at Vic Uni regards as a monumental cock. Way to win that student support, guys.

  35. Owlzy says:

    Oh workers party, don’t tacitly support Jasmine Freemantle through kicking her out of your clown College. Have you learned nothing from Doctor Nicholas Kelly?

    Speaking of which, why the fuck is he always in the Student Union late at night on the weekend? Who is he canoodling up to? I notice Sonny Thomas is in UniQ and seems to be there too, is he strapping on a trash can as an impromptu condom and taking Nick for a ride? Or is Jasmine just using him to write random acts of policy?

  36. P0wlzy says:

    Sonny works for the Union. s’probably why he’s there all the time, huh. weird cos i notice jackson wood and jasmine freemantle are always in the student union building tooOooh conspiracy. fuck.

    And sonny’s sexuality was already deplorably explored in the election campaign, not that it should fuckin matter.

  37. Joseph Fritzl says:

    traitor bitch

  38. sorry my last post was overly abusive

  39. fibby says:

    If there are really that many Salients outside the VUWSA office, perhaps someone could see their way to taking them down to Pipitea? We run out by 4pm Monday, week after week after week. Consequently we can’t keep up on vital news like this, and we get even more alienated than, as Commerce students, we already were.

  40. Laura McQuillan says:

    Re Amy’s comment: Shouldn’t the Workers Party have kicked her out after making that comment, if it really pains them that much that she’s not pushing their beliefs?

  41. Sando says:

    I have been grabbing a copy from Pipitea on Fridays as I pass through, and there are always a few left in the bins. Maybe the problem is just one of restocking earlier?

  42. T says:

    [abridged - while that is awesome it is not for here. JJW]

    While this might not be relevant to the post above i thought i would stand strong with her while this issue is worked out. She is a good woman and a good president and if those morons in the WP realised this they wouldnt have let her go.

    Stand strong Jas,

    T

  43. Matthew_Cunningham says:

    Ian Anderson:
    “OK, one small thing.

    “Actually, according to Lenin you do not; once a decision has been made in a workers’ council higher in the democratic centralist hierarchy than yours, you are obliged to comply with it regardless of whether you agree with it or not. Almost makes ‘democratic centralism’ sound like an oxymoron, really.”

    Dissent is allowed internally, before a decision is made; after that, members adhere. We don’t rigorously abide by Lenin’s approach, especially not the primacy of central committees, but on that point we do.”

    I think our definitions here are pretty much the same; I too was implying that dissent is allowed internally, but once a decision has been made above you in the democratic centralist hierarchy you are obliged to follow it. The end result is the centralisation of power amongst a small group of people within the party, rendering the term “democratic” highly suspect.

    Either way, the decision to expel Jasmine from the Workers Party rests on the notion that a decision made within the democratic centralist hierarchy was not obeyed to the mark and point by one of its members. However, as has been shown above, Jasmine did not campaign on a Workers Party ticket – in fact, she made every effort to stress her ability to separate her campaign from her ideological roots. This raises the question: to what extent does Party loyalty extend into an individual’s life outside of the Party jurisdiction? If it does not extend, then the Workers Party has no case against Jasmine. If it does, then I suggest you add the word “totalitarianism” to your description of Party membership.

    Cheers, Matt.

  44. Free Vic says:

    When people understand that “totalitarian” and “socialist” go together like marijuana and the munchies, maybe we won’t have idiotically dangerous organisations like the WP voted into important positions of power.

    Oh wait, they run VUWSA. Never mind …

  45. Kerry says:

    Ok, JJW, throw me off again after this one, or prove your immaturity by blocking the post, either way I don’t care.

    Jasmine and Nick are both people I have know for a long time, as activists, students, and collegues in the case of Jas. I am not a member of the WP, neither am I, or have I been, an elected Vuwsa exec member, but I have been associated with activism that both organisations have contributed to in the past.

    [The comment has been edited for reasons of confidentiality. JJW]

    None of which ever went anywhere near public, when it totally should have – then Salient have the gall to bitch about this???

    Jasmine has been cleaning up pieces of office administration that were left dangling by TWO previous presidents; and as I have watched her move form a very stressful environment at Gender & Women’s Studies, to the cess-pit of unfinished business that was Vuwsa in late 2008, I have been mightily impressed by her ability to cut through the crap and actually get some sensible strategies in place. She has very pragmatically dealt with issues concerning budgetary constraints, and has had support and assistance from Nick, as a former Vuwsa president, one who actually did get some major issues (like the MOU, which had been unfinished business for a very long span of years) sorted out and signed off.

    Jasmine has been instrumental in getting the first stage of approval for the Campus Hub refurbishment underway – a refurbishment that I first heard of around four years ago, due to a friend who was sitting on the Faculty Boards when it was first being discussed.
    It’s pretty major to actually get past the funding approval stage, and it will be at least to more years before all the submissions hearings and planning procedures are done with, which is standard VUW protocol; don’t hold your breath waiting fro the new facilities to pop up in the quad, kids, but it will happen, prolly about the time this year’s first-years are ready to graduate.

    Jackson, your shallow and feeble attempt to muck-rake says more about the paucity of skills you have as a journalist than anything I could say – you have taken an issue that was a contention between at most about 20 people, and turned it into a ‘Vuwsa’ issue, when the main point of the contention is actually about WP internal politics, and a couple of very inexperienced people over-reaching themselves in an attempt to apply theory to a practical situation.
    GROW UP!!!

  46. Shitkicker McGee says:

    Kerry, could you just clarify how the editor is being immature by posting a balanced blog showing all sides of the issues around the Workers Party? Did you want it to be one-sided towards your pal Jasmine? Would that be the mature thing to do?

    Since you’re so mature, and that’s a euphemism for old and annoying, could you please fuck off?

  47. Simon Danger says:

    Kerry, both the WP and freemantle sent out press releases about the issue. I’m pretty sure that salient would have been on those email lists that the sent it out to. Even farrar got sent the releases. This clearly isn’t the editor muckraking, salient presented both sides of the thing with hardly any rleation to vuwsa. If you read he press release and jasmins bio they both concentrate heavily on vuwsa and her JFs actions as presiident of said association.

    Also aren’t any things that go to the dept. of labour confidential and you probably shouldn’t be talking about them on here and further under mining any issues the ‘student journalist’ may be trying to confidentially resolve?

  48. Kerry says:

    [The comment has been edited for reasons of confidentiality. JJW]

    Jackson using this issue to snipe at Joel is immature.
    It has nothing to do with the WP dispute how many Salient’s sit around composting on campus, or indeed, if this would be different had Joel been chosen to be this year’s editor. Jackson’s editorial commentary around the outside of the actual press release facts is the matter I object to.
    Having subbed examples of both of their prose in the past, I can say with all certainty that it would hardly make much difference to the sub-editors’ load whichever one of them had taken the position – neither of them can spell consistently or construct grammatical sentences, which leads to a lot of re-construction late on Thursday nights.

    Ad hominum insults merely prove the writer has nothing to add to the debate.

  49. Mikey says:

    Heard of Muphry’s law, Kerry?

    *…due to Nicholls’ [sic—his name is Nicoll] cavalier attitude…

    *For which fact, I’m [sic] salute the young journalist who…

    *It has nothing to do with the WP dispute how many Salient’s [sic] sit around composting on campus…

    *…which leads to a lot of re-construction [sic] late on Thursday nights.

    “Jackson using this issue to snipe at Joel is immature.”
    As immature as wearing an ‘I heart my penis’ t-shirt to represent VUWSA at graduation? As immature as setting fire to the New Zealand flag? As immature as shaving swear words into your beard? The list could go on. I think you get my point.
    I also believe you are using this issue to snipe at Jackson, simply by misinterpreting this article as an attack on Jasmine, when in fact, she requested he wrote about it on the website. As you can see, others believe it is a balanced report; I even think it bodes well for Jasmine, and you can see the positive feedback some of the commenters here have given her.

    “Ad hominum insults merely prove the writer has nothing to add to the debate.”
    This comes right after you attack Jackson and Joel’s spelling and grammar. How ironic.

  50. Matthew_Cunningham says:

    Kerry,

    Considering that this is a blog and not a news or feature item, I think you are being unfair in your treatment of Jackson. If you cast your eye over the sample blog posts over the last year or two you’ll see most of them are opinionated to some degree. All things considered I thought this was a pretty balanced piece to be honest.

    “Jackson using this issue to snipe at Joel is immature.
    It has nothing to do with the WP dispute how many Salient’s sit around composting on campus, or indeed, if this would be different had Joel been chosen to be this year’s editor. Jackson’s editorial commentary around the outside of the actual press release facts is the matter I object to.”

    The context of Joel’s email pertains to Jasmine’s expulsion, and Joel’s condescending (not to mention incorrect) attitude towards Salient renders it a prime analog of the immaturity behind the WP decision to expel Jasmine. Whilst it might have been better raised in a separate blog, it is still relevant to this discussion.

    Cheers, Matt.

  51. Amy says:

    This blog post seems neutral on Freemantle, negative on Cosgrove. The only criticism of Freemantle you could take out of it is that her blog post was really, really, long…

  52. Brother Che says:

    z z z z z z z z

    The Worker’s Party is an oxymoron (student allowance and/or other welfare payments such as dole, sickness or invalid benefits does not make you a “worker”)
    Show us your tax returns, faggots!

    Jasmine Freemantle is just a moron.

    Joel Cosgrove is a little less intelligent than the flag he set fire to.

    Sounds like the end of the “reach around revolution” to me. Well, boo-fucking-hoo! Can’t we all just get along?

  53. ts says:

    Jasmine’s accountable and honest with her dealings, thats the difference between her and Joel Cosgrove. She’s direct but at least she makes it clear where she stands. Cosgrove on the other hand owes VUWSA members at least $1200 for travel to Melbourne last year, he wrote a report that was plagirised. Pay up JOEL. Jasmine works in a mainstream context for ALL students. She saved three jobs that Joel tried to cut at VUWSA last year. Jasmine and her VPs are actually doing the work and cleaning up the mess left by Joel and Co. By the way the moaning staff there need to be bought under some control – the students are THEIR EMPLOYERS after all.

  54. Bored says:

    Oh go away Nick Kelly.

  55. Alyx says:

    I thought the blog actually encouraged people to go and read Jasmine’s side – in her own words, no less. Sure, its negative towards Cosgrove, but no more so than his emails are to Salient.

    Kerry, I don’t understand how you can possibly view this as sniping at Jasmine? Seriously – where in the post does it even remotely suggest that JJW has anything other than interest in what she has to say on the matter?

    Personally, I think equating Jackson’s writing to Cosgrove’s is ridiculous. I’ve subbed Jackson’s stuff too, and in a feature-length piece I found maybe 5 or so errors – mostly just transposed letters (ie: dind’t). I think the quality of Jackson’s writing during his tenure at Salient far outweighs the fact that in typing out articles he occasionally makes a spelling error – especially when there is a whole team of people whose sole job it is to correct spelling and grammar on production night. Compare this to Joel’s apparent inability to even construct a simple report on his own, and I think the facts speak for themselves. Also, when Joel brings a point up in his email that is untrue, Jackson is just supposed to let it stand without refuting it? If that’s your policy, why did you take to the comments to refute things you believed to be untrue? I support the commenting, by all means, but if you’re going to hold somebody to a standard, at least stick to it yourself.

    You’ve obviously got some grievance; so come out and say it, blatantly and openly. Nobody agrees with what you’ve said so far, nobody. All you’ve done is call JJW out for ‘muckraking’ – untrue. Then you praised Jasmine for fixing the errors of the last few years – belittling Cosgrove. Then you say that editorial commentary (in his own personal blog) has no place in this context.. and then proceed to add your own commentary!

    Langdon did a pretty decent job but I’d love for somebody to fisk your replies in a public forum, because watching somebody besides you try and reach the conclusions you do from the arbitrary points you make would be entertainment worth paying for. Sando – are there any Comedy Fest spots left open??

  56. fg says:

    “In case you guys hadn’t noticed, Salient is pretty much the only media outlet that pays these muppets any attention. Why? I’m actually beginning to wonder that myself.”

    Ha ha yeah stop reporting what these dicks are getting up to!

  57. Ham says:

    In my opinion, running VUWSA is difficult to as it is, with problems with staffing, budgeting and people ripping it off (Joel) etc.

    Political parties on campus like the Workers party and their politics do the students a disservice, more interested in bickering and their own egos than running an effective, representative organisation. 90% of students think they are a joke and couldn’t give a shit about their petty politics. They represent everything that is wrong in politics and provide a poor example to students, and quite honestly they put me off ever wanting to run for any type of student service.

    Leave the ideologies at the door, as they are only distractions and get in the way of serving students. The only way to run VUWSA well is to run it as a pragmatist

    I mean seriously? VUWSA is real fucking small time in the greater scheme of things.

  58. Kerry says:

    Investigative journalism has a long way to go in this university, if none of you have any idea of the facts, nor the spin that has been put with a few unrelated ‘facts’ that Jackson has added to the story. Did nobody bother to find out any background to this story?

    This is not Jackson’s personal blog, it’s the Salient blog, and used to be written by the paid news & feature writers – Laura & Nicola were the last two to have that priviledge (as described in the job descriptions that failed to materialize in full that year, or since, to my knowledge) and it’s another indicator of the way the paper is failing to follow accepted, well-documented office procedures which were disrupted in 2007, and have been incompletely restored since then.

    I subbed Jackson in 2007 & 2008, there was a lot more to his work that needed re-working than just a few typo’s. Obviously, if you’ve found less to worry about lately, then either his standards have improved, or the kind of stuff I pick up isn’t being noticed by current subeditors.
    The ASPA’s last year spring to mind, when Salient got it’s worst results for a decade or so, due to poorly subbed work being printed in the latter half of 2008.

    Jasmine has been criticised in Salient, across many issues, for poor management, which is false.
    Joel left a lot of problems when he finished up as President, which Salient has even reported on in past issues – I suggest some of you research a little by reading back through the bound copies, as not all stories are kept on the website.

    Sloppy research habits and a tendency to write off the top of his head are Jackson’s most repeated journalistic traits (including, with Conrad, plaigirising other political journalists in Wellington, by repeatedly cutting and pasting material last year – I’m amazed Tracey Watkins never sued.) and none of these are good, or even adequate journalism.

    Salient used to be a team of young, enthusiastic writers, from many disciplines, covering issues that mattered to students on campus; not a vehicle to glorify one aspiring political/journalism student at the expense of others on the staff.

  59. Gibbon says:

    Must be quiet on the activism front at the moment huh Kerry

  60. Gibbon says:

    I don’t care to comment on the substance of your post Kerry but I just wanted to say that I certainly would not like to be a friend of yours. It seems as if you keep a mental journal of all the fuck-ups your friends and acquaintances make, and then use them as public ammunition when it suits you.

  61. Conrad Reyners says:

    Perhaps the reason Tracy never sued, was because I wasn’t plagiarizing? Seriously Kerry. Play the ball not the man. But well, fair play has never been your strong point (stealing, and then ripping up democratic petitions must do that to you).

    Anyway, why would I want to plagiarise – there’s enough crazy stuff in my head without resorting to Watkins’.

  62. Conrad Reyners says:

    Oh – and Kerry, I cant take anything you say seriously. This year you accused me of being an SIS spy – sent to investigate your life.

    I wouldn’t wish such a fate on my most mortal enemies.

  63. “I subbed Jackson in 2007 & 2008, there was a lot more to his work that needed re-working than just a few typo’s.”

    I think it’s nicely ironic that “typo’s” is a typo. You must have been a great sub-editor.

  64. Shitkicker McGee says:

    OMG CONRAD IS SIS FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK

  65. Jackson Wood says:

    Kerry. You have totally missed the point.

    Please refrain from personal attacks. If you have issues with the way that Salient is run then you are more than welcome to contact me.

    Please refrain about commenting on confidential matters. Parts of your previous comments have been removed for reasons of confidentiality.

  66. Gibbon says:

    “salient got it’s worst results”

  67. Gibbon says:

    “have that priviledge”

  68. T says:

    when are your going to un-moderate my comment?

    Krazy Kerry is allowed to post. Double standards ahoy!

  69. Gibbon says:

    “plaigirising”

  70. T says:

    wankerising more like it

  71. Adam Goodall says:

    Ah, the wonders of the obliviously ignorant. Don’t give up your day job, Kerry, whatever it is (unless it’s sub-editing for a publication, in which case, give up your day job as soon as fucking possible).

  72. Matthew Donaldson says:

    Investigative journalism has a long way to go in this university…

    If this means Nina Fowler and Sarah Robson have been dawdling along in second gear up ’til now, then wow, I can’t wait to see what they produce when they’re in third or even fourth gear. Their work thus far has been accessible, entertaining, strident and informative. They’re both fine writers, and their very presence in the pages of Salient has been a joy to read. So, no, you’re completely wrong.

    … and it’s another indicator of the way the paper is failing to follow accepted, well-documented office procedures which were disrupted in 2007, and have been incompletely restored since then.

    I’m guessing you haven’t read Andrew Mendes’ pieces on the US political scene? You should. They’re gorgeous to read. They’re like sitting in a cosy bar somewhere quiet drinking something smooth—and what’s more, a small (but growing) number have been blogs. Yeah, sorry, but wrong again.

    Jasmine has been criticised in Salient, across many issues, for poor management, which is false.

    The Freemantle presidency has been one of the most fairly and accurately covered VUWSA presidencies in recent memory. I get the feeling here you’re hoping that if you say something loud enough and often enough it’ll come true. You’re wrong. Again.

    Salient used to be a team of young, enthusiastic writers, from many disciplines, covering issues that mattered to students on campus; not a vehicle to glorify one aspiring political/journalism student at the expense of others on the staff.

    Still is. Some old names (Wood, Oliver, Robson, Dean, Drinkwater), but many, many, many new ones. Salient has been revitalised under Jackson’s guidance; it has been rejuvenated, and a large reason for that is that the editor cares enough about the quality of the magazine to not hog the limelight (certain cover pages aside). Have you even seen a word in Salient this year about the editor’s Mt. Albert campaign? Nope. Not a word.

    You’re wrong. Plain wrong. End of story.

  73. Conrad Reyners says:

    Always watching, always waiting Shitkicker.

    Dun dun…

  74. Matthew_Cunningham says:

    Two very enthusiastic thumbs up to Matthew Donaldson’s riposte – you’ve said it all.

    Kerry, i’ve gone out of my way to defend you in the past when people have made personal attacks on you, but I am astounded at the level of vindictiveness you are expressing here. I agree with Jackson – you’ve missed the point of this blog entirely, and you’ve resorted to blatant lies and slander to back up your position.

    Some examples:
    “Jasmine has been criticised in Salient, across many issues, for poor management, which is false.”

    The only example of this that I can find that is directly related to Jasmine’s Presidency is the web-only article published in early January regarding the changes to the Salient budget for 2009. This was a genuine concern based on actual proposed changes and said nothing about ‘poor management’. Unless you are referring to the coverage over the ANZAC Day issue (which was, in my view, relatively impartial), you are blatantly lying. Conversely, you have a series of well-written and admirably impartial eye on exec’s that have been produced this year which have reflected very admirably on Jasmine’s hard work.

    “Joel left a lot of problems when he finished up as President, which Salient has even reported on in past issues – I suggest some of you research a little by reading back through the bound copies, as not all stories are kept on the website.”

    Is anybody refuting this? If you read both Jackson’s article and the subsequent replies you will see an overwhelming amount of support for Jasmine and a unanimous condemnation of Joel. By resorting to your usual “I suggest some of you research a little” line over a completely ireelevant argument, you are being both condescending and slanderous.

    “Salient used to be a team of young, enthusiastic writers, from many disciplines, covering issues that mattered to students on campus; not a vehicle to glorify one aspiring political/journalism student at the expense of others on the staff.”

    This is just a downright low blow. As Matthew Donaldson has said, clearly you have not read the articles being produced by this year’s feature writers, which have been both thorough and easy to read. The fact that Nina, Sarah and Andrew can immerse themselves in such diverse subject material each week and write as if they’d spent years researching each topic amazes me.

    If you have personal issues with Jackson (and, by the sound of it, Conrad as well), please refrain from airing them through the use of unmitigated and unwarranted vitriol.

    Cheers, Matt.

  75. labrouyeah says:

    Kerry stop defending Jasmine. She back stabs you at every oppotunity. She isn’t a “feminist” sister of yours, she’s a perversion of several contradictory persona, she’s mostly a wannabe Stalinist at this point – there are obvious traits coming through in her character and method – she is perfecting this on a daily basis.

  76. Alyx says:

    I can’t add anything more to what the Matthews have said, except to applaud and agree with them.

    I’m curious, Kerry, but if you feel that Salient has been desperately lacking (which multitudes are disagreeing with, in case you hadn’t noticed), why do you continue to write for it? Furthermore, if you feel it is investigative journalism that’s lacking, why aren’t you writing and submitting that as opposed to reviews?

    I also think its appalling that you’ve criticised the subbing team, and the feature writers. They are doing an incredible job and I think the tone and standard of Salient is getting better with every issue.

    You’re also exhibiting sloppy research habits of your own, having not bothered to check if any of the wild, personal accusations you’ve made are true or just part of your own personal vendetta.

    Congratulations, though, you’ve managed to attract all the attention from this blog (written in Jackson’s name, not Salient’s. The same way your articles are written in your name, not Salient’s) and onto yourself. Activism at its finest; focused on the person not the issue. Oh wait..

  77. Wee Hamish says:

    Ah wash dear wos a werrkerrs parthay bachk un Aberdeen, den mah Dahd woulden have got thaa sachk fer wagglin hus cock at traffic during rush hoaur. waht els is ah winder wahsher sposed tah do i ahsk?

  78. Simon Danger says:

    Me thinks that someone is pissed off with JJW for his “reactionary radicals” rant in the aftermath of the anzac shit. Kerry seems to be the typification of a RR:

    “People who blindly follow some vague ideology with no actual basis. Who protest for change but are afraid of changing themselves. Polemicists.

    People like this mess with democracy by simply yelling the loudest—marginalising those who speak sense. ”

    You say JJW needs to grow up but he is more mature than you will ever be.
    You say JJW shouldn’t attack people – when he hasn’t – and you attack him
    You say salient needs to learn what investigative journalism is – you obviously haven’t read it this year.
    You say you’re the perfect sub editor yet you can’t even write a comment without making a mistake.
    You say a load of litanies against the current editor and staff and even take a poke at last years crew – you transpose your obvious hate of men, authority and people who are more intelligent and rational than you onto these people and it just makes you look like the fool you know you are, kerry.

    What you need to do is calf the fuck down. You are a sad, sad person, kerry. We don’t want to hear about it.

  79. Show Van Ist says:

    I wonder if Kerry will snap one day and start shooting people. And if she does, I wonder if people will be doing quizzes on the internet 20 years later about which of Kerry’s jumpers they are.

  80. didier says:

    READ HERE:

    workersparty.org.nz/2009/05/20/statement-on-jasmine-freemantles-expulsion/

  81. Graphical User Ynterface Armstrong says:

    I think this is quite strong evidence, that Kerry, like Margaret Thatcher and The Queen, is a reptilian shapeshifter. Obviously.

    *Slaps forehead*

  82. amya says:

    This munter’s already spent over $20,000 of VUWSA money (i.e. ours) on a solicitor in order to defend her tactics, she has unilaterally – without warning ignored legit processes by sending staff home on full pay (also ours) for the flimsiest of reasons – the executive, sorry “MY executive” as she puts it are kept ignorant – so they don’t even realise what’s actually going on. ROLL HER TODAY.

  83. Against The Stream says:

    Clearly the VUWSA/Workers Party split shows that both organizational radical outfits are in deep crisis. The level of Opportunism is a product of degeneration, that the blind forces of VUWSA/Workers Party have become integrated into, the national milieu.
    “The Fourth International alone embodies and represents these principles. It is possible for a national group to maintain a constant revolutionary course only if it is firmly connected in one organization with co-thinkers throughout the world and maintains a constant political and theoretical collaboration with them. The Fourth International alone is such an organization. All purely national groupings, all those who reject international organization, control, and discipline, are in their essence reactionary.”
    http://marxists.org/history/etol/document/fi/1938-1949/fi-1stcongress/ch13.htm

  84. she who must not be named says:

    amya -

    you’re clearly not paying attention. Salient reported the amount spent on legal fees They were at the meeting. It’s a couple of hundred over $14k. Mostly due to a couple of disputes from earlier execs that weren’t addressed by former Presidents (mostly Joel and Geoff), as well as the legal costs incurred from Joel fucking around, not paying back the $1200 owed to the association re the Australia trip, and then the rest is general legal fees from the good running of the association, so it is not liable (because trust me, if they didn’t use legal advice for such things, it would cost much more when the shit hit the fan).

    It’d be terrible if Jasmine was a legal expert/lawyer who used legal fees. but grow up, she’s not trying to cover *her* ass, she’s covering the association’s ass. it’s pretty standard. are you a fucking first year or something? because you dont seem like you know shit about anything.

    you’re a fucking idiot. shut the hell up, no one cares for the lies you are spouting for god knows what ulterior motive. anyone with half a brain can see what a fucking excellent job jasmine is doing as president – in fact, i think we’re all a bit staggered by it.

    if anyone is a threat to the waste of students’ money, it’s fuckwits like you.

  85. controlfreax says:

    ‘she who must not be named’ – she uses lawyers for everything, even meetings where there is no real need to, she just needs to get over her fear and issues of wanting to control everything… and things would be smoother and easier for her…

  86. Andrew Frankston says:

    my guess is she wants a lawyer there to make sure everything’s done right the first time so that her successor doesn’t have to.

  87. controlfreax says:

    What even for regular staff meetings? She uses a lawyer for EVERYTHING…

  88. Andrew Frankston says:

    how about a big cuppa cum

  89. she who must not be named says:

    You’re all fucking self-righteous idiots.

  90. Matthew_Cunningham says:

    controlfreax / amya:

    I spoke to Jasmine this morning, and what you are saying about the excessive reliance on lawyers is simply not true.

    Most of the legal costs from this year have resulted from having to deal with leftover issues from 2007 and 2008 that were never dealt with by Geoff Hayward or Joel Cosgrove (such as the outstanding Collective Agreement from 2008 which, despite Joel’s claims to the contrary, was never finalised). She ahs actually taken it upon herself to perform much of the legal legwork, such as writing letters and the like. In fact, the issue over Joel’s misappropriated funds from 2008 has largely been handled pro-bono, thanks to the help of Chris Bishop.

    The following are Jasmine’s own words, which are fairly thorough:

    “I am aware that there are rumours that VUWSA has spent too much money on lawyers fees this year (including claims that VUWSA has spent $100,000 on lawyers). To date, this sum is a little over $14000. Almost all of this money (bar about $500 which was spent on clearing proposed constitutional amendments, which is mandated under the Constitution, and a small amount on clubs liabilities) has been spent on HR issues directly related to former Presidents. These include, for instance, settling grievances from 2007 and 2008 which should have been done way before I even took office. This also includes the VUWSA staff collective agreement, which expired last year on 31 July. Unfortunately, Joel left the collective (as with many other things) in such a state that I have had absolutely no choice but to seek legal advice. In fact, VUWSA would be left wide open to serious problems if I had not taken the steps that I have. To be quite honest, VUWSA could have spent considerably more money on lawyers this year. The reason that VUWSA hasn’t is that I have done all the ‘legal groundwork’ myself – arranging sessions at the Department of Labour’s mediation service, meeting with Helen Kelly (President, CTU), writing dozens of memos to Unite, convincing Matt McCarten (National Secretary, Unite) to fly down to Wellington and meet with me so that we can sort out the collective in a professional way. None of these steps were taken by Joel (nor by Nick or Geoff). In a ‘normal’ situation, they probably don’t need to be. However, the mess that I have inherited is extraordinary, and does require such steps to get the Association back on track.”

    Cheers, Matt.