Hello everyone

I will try keep this bit to a minimum, as current issues are obviously more pressing, but the 1979 West London case has been referred to a few times of late. I must say that ard mhacha's comment that 1979 was a long time ago, in the context of what happened to many families and a huge social group, was thoughtless & hurtful.
I'd like to straighten up the record in relation to this 'historical' but sadly now familiar expulsion issue. It was not a case of the West London committee disagreeing with Larry's politics (many would have agreed with his causes); the committee protested that it was against the constitution of CCE to use his position to attempt to raise funds for political reasons. He was fund-raising (via CCE) for the Padraig Pearse Centenary celebrations – a fine thing to do as Chairman (as he then was) of the Padraig Pearse Commemoration committee, but not something that should have been foist on all branches of CCE, in our opinion. The dispute became a matter of public discussion and it's this that became the reason for our expulsion. We had apparently brought the organisation into disrepute via the public discussion. You need to remember that 1979 hosted a different climate, and it was important – even to the most Republican of CCE committee members in London – that the constitution points (i.e. non-religious, non-political etc) – were upheld. People were working hard to promote Irish Music in England (West London had succeeded in producing a BBC documentary about the branch), and there were numerous non-Irish committee members.
Anyway, the process adopted by the CCE Executive at the time perfectly mirrors the current solution. People who could not countenance life with out Comhaltas, or those who did not understand the subtleties of the argument – or those who just agreed with Larry's actions and did not care about the constitution – were invited to form a new committee. It worked. I estimate that 10-15% of the old membership formed the new West London CCE, which celebrated it's "50th" anniversary in 2007 (with no mention of the schism in 1979 as far as I can tell). The whole thing at the time was just incredibly sad. There were people in the middle of the whole scenario who just did not know where to go anymore. Thankfully most of us re-grouped, and that set-up is still going strong – at The Kilkenny, Tooting, every Tuesday.

To more salient issues, and the statement issued by HQ….I think that it's important for as many people as possible to view the documents on http://www.cluaintarbh.net/ My 'take' on these complex issues around ownership/loans is that – in taking possession of the building, and subsequently asking the branch to secure the loans required for completion of works – there was an impossible demand situation. How could the branch possibly be expected to secure a loan of this size with no security? They'd have to put up their homes.
The documents are lengthy, but clear. The recent statement implies that HQ borrowed 2 million euros at end of December 2007, to bail out this irresponsible branch. Why, therefore, do I see documentation of an Extraordinary General Meeting of the branch on 8th January 2008, stating "We are very concerned to ensure bank funding is put in place immediately to complete the project" and pleading their case for this not being their responsibility? And there is another letter, dated 28th January, with similar concerns about payment of contractors.

This is only one aspect of a case, the whole of which we can't hope to fully comprehend. But it's an aspect that has been very neatly side-stepped in the statement from HQ (above). Unsurprisingly, I must agree with Sean Murphy that the statement is a "rather good example of PR spin".
Please research it for yourselves.
Responses from the branch members (ex or current!) would also be most welcome.

Maggie