WW editor justifies censorship of left criticism, redefined as 'lies'.

Below is Peter Manson's feeble and apolitical response to the letter reprinted previously. A point by point response will be posted shortly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Ian

I am not prepared to publish your latest letter in its current form. This is because it repeats or refers to patently false claims that have already been refuted in the Weekly Worker.

It is true that publishing the lies of, say, the SWP is often useful in exposing the nature of such an important organisation, but the same consideration does not apply to a lone individual. We have printed and responded to all your false claims previously, but it is in nobody's interest to continue to do so.

Here, in my view, are your "lies" on Osler/Galloway:

1. 'Dave Osler's article was published because it corresponded to the views of the CPGB or its leadership.'

The CPGB's views were in fact more accurately reflected in commissioned articles by Manny Neira and Ian Donovan in the two issues that followed. Later articles by Peter Manson, Eddie Ford and Mike Macnair, as well as yourself, confirmed the CPGB's actual position, which was to "Defend Galloway".

2. Osler's article was "unworthy of a publication calling itself communist", since it stated: "Galloway was probably guilty and 'the left should lead the condemnation'."

Comrade Osler actually wrote that Galloway should be given "the benefit of the doubt" - pretty much the exact opposite of your falsified representation of his opinion. I referred to your dishonest quote-chopping in my last letter to the paper. Osler's piece was one-sided and therefore wrong and I agree with what you wrote after you left the CPGB - that it would have been better to carry it on an inside page.

3. 'While he was a member Ian Donovan fought long and hard against the CPGB leadership on such matters as the publication of the Osler piece.'

You were an elected member of that leadership - the PCC, which oversees the production of the WW - and were therefore ultimately just as responsible for its contents as any other PCC member. Yet you made no complaint about the publication of the Osler piece either on the PCC or in writing elsewhere. This is because you were not against its publication at the time.

Your latest allegations about "pre-emptive censorship" on the CPGB discussion list have also previously been published and refuted in the Weekly Worker.
The Weekly Worker was not "embarrassed" into publishing your last letter. I decided not to publish it for the reasons given above, but immediately posted it for comrades' information on our internal discussion list. Mike Macnair suggested it should be printed, allowing the points you raised on accountability to be answered (although I note you have nothing to say on this substantive question in your latest letter). Other comrades agreed and I (reluctantly) went along with this and published the article as soon as Mike was able to write it.

I have posted your latest letter, together with this response, on our internal list.

In comradeship

Peter Manson