Although in the most part it sticks to the facts and does correspond to the actual course of events there one particluar part that seems invent divisions and reflect the aspirations of internet anarchists to rewrite histroy to suit their personal viewpoint.
The document reads:

" As was later commented on an internet forum;

"It was a real contrast to see how much energy and resources went into the organising of the G20 protests compared to how much support the Visteon occupation was given. This is partly an indication of the difference in priority, for some, given to activist protest on the one hand and class struggle on the other - and partly that many useful G20 resources [which could have been used at the occupation and, later, picket] had already returned to their sources outside London. [...] The occupation's been going for about 10 days now, and I doubt there's ever been much more than 300 people outside the factory, including workers, family and friends, and SWP. In comparison with the thousands at G20, not all of whom, it's true, live in London; but many of whom are not 'class warriors' either and reject such an outlook.""

Just for the record anarchists involved in organising the militant workers bloc on the G20 demo were also involved in the supporters group and active on the picket line throughout the dispute.

There was absolutely no organised "class struggle anarchist" response to the visteon dispute. None. Given the amount of class struggle anarchists who present themselves on the internet, based in london, it comes as a surprise they were unable to muster some form of organised presense. Balming the G20 for their lack of organisation, lack of imput and lack of effectiveness in the visteon dispute is laughable and blatantly wrong.

Maybe a question the internet radical and author of the piece should be asking is, why are class struggle anarchists are unable to actively involve themselves in something that refelcts their political identity?