The details can be found here.
Indeed, more recently rumours of Shaista’s supposed ‘inappropriate’ behaviour at World School 2013 arose, whereby she has been accused on a number of occasions of ‘flirting’ with senior members of the organisation such as Rob Sewell and Alan Woods. Clearly, this is a ridiculous allegation and amounts to little more than wish fulfilment on their part; especially given both of their inappropriate conduct towards Shaista during World Congress 2012 and World School 2013. As figureheads of the organisation, this behaviour is despicable and also reflects their lack of discipline with regards to their treatment of young female comrades. Shaista was extremely distressed by Alan Woods’ actions and comments towards her which included unambiguously sexual physical contact.
When Shaista informed comrade Adam Booth of this physical contact he accused her of being ‘drunk’ and he dismissed the severity of the situation as “not a big deal”. At the time, comrade Nina Christou appeared to be reassuring to Shaista, but as Nina Christou’s position in the organisation became more prominent she altered her recollection of events to fall in line with Adam Booth’s. Shaista was not ‘too drunk’ and remembers the incident clearly and precisely, which outside of the organisation and by law would constitute sexual harassment. Shaista was disgusted by the complete lack of response to these incidents, and this combined with political disagreements (which will be covered later in this response), caused her to distance herself from the organisation.
As Shaista lessened her involvement in the organisation, a notably hostile attitude towards her developed among the full-timers. This attitude manifested itself in the circulation of malicious gossip with the intention of discrediting Shaista in the eyes of new and existing comrades curious of Shaista’s situation. The wider goal of this character besmirchment was to discourage contact with her and to de-legitimise her grievances. This was portrayed to new comrades as an attempt to limit the influence of a ‘bourgeois feminist’ on them – another accusation that has no basis in fact and is replete with irony when it is aimed at one of only two young proletarian women in the organisation (the other being Keziah Keeler of course).