Just returned from a meeting at the Common Place, a social-centre in Leeds in the north of England. There was a meeting there advertised on this thread:
https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/10/439730.html?c=on I am posting this for those who are interested in what happened but weren’t able to attend. Well the meeting was very well attended. There were probably about 40 people there I guess, which I understand is about 5 to 10 times the usual. The meeting and the situation it had been called to try and address had been caused by a pacifist on one of the Common Place committees blocking use of the building by an antifascist group. It was quite a long meeting, a lot was said, but apart from this one guy everyone was supporting the antifascists. He admitted that he didn’t actually know anything about the antifascist group anyway. It was agreed that what he done was wrong. It was also agreed that the committee he was a part of had had an improper understanding of concensus decision making and that one person should not have been able to block a booking by a well-established group that use the place. It was agreed that the group had as much right to use the Common Place as anyone else and that this guy couldn’t block groups like that in the future. People didn’t really feel it necessary to go through the whole violence v non-violence debate because they all agreed except this one guy (who seemed pretty confused actually.) Afterwards a lot of people were saying that they couldn’t believe the meeting took place, and that this guy is always doing something like this. I don’t know if it is all worked out, but I hope so. Common Place users seem pretty clear in their support for antifascists (as well as groups like the EZLN which were mentioned) and hopefully everyone will respect each other more in future without one person being allowed to rule everything with politics that most users reject.
Comments
Hide 23 hidden comments or hide all comments
PS
13.10.2009 23:00
newbie
Comment
13.10.2009 23:07
Antifascist
A further point
13.10.2009 23:09
Antifascist
Reasonably well-run
13.10.2009 23:26
anon
Left a nasty taste in my mouth
14.10.2009 00:01
Is this chapter over? No, tonight's meeting wasn't a decision-making meeting apparently - the closed meeting oin Thursday has the clout. Perhaps they will investigate lies told in an e-mail by this man attaching views to another member which he claimed never to have held - An older guy who was ready to fight over the lies told about him despite looking a gentle bloke.
Will the Thursday meeting be given an accurate view of tonights meeting? I doubt it. Will they fudge the matter? I'd put money on it? Is this over? Not until the posh bloke walks.
Zeb
bullies
14.10.2009 05:14
Seems to me like this just shows up Leeds Antifascists for what they really are: a bunch of bullies who only turn up in crowds and aren't prepared to discuss their politics because they know they'll lose the argument. Shame on you all.
commoner
we all have to take some responsibility
14.10.2009 08:10
collective responsibility
Good point
14.10.2009 08:34
...
Some 'Pacifist'
14.10.2009 08:45
Black n Red
Stop this thread
14.10.2009 08:58
Please close it now.
It is pathetic
stop this thread
not over
14.10.2009 09:10
sceptic
sceptic
Why?
14.10.2009 09:14
In what sense, most of the comments seem thoughtful and well-intentioned. Also accurate (I was at the meeting last night.)
"Please close it now."
Just because you don't agree with everything said why would you want to have this thread closed? If you have a response make one, the same as everyone else.
"It is pathetic"
In my opinion, it is your censoriousness that is pathetic. You have made no argument at all.
Hilary
Last night's meeting
14.10.2009 09:26
anon
P.S.
14.10.2009 09:28
anon
The news is there
14.10.2009 09:30
Great.
The comments are just embarasing, degenerating into shit (the comment about attacking a terminally ill man for instance).
The comments serve no purpose. It is not news it is just slanderous shit that will do no good.
Stop this thread
Lies in an e-mail
14.10.2009 09:48
This was a very serious allegation which deserves to be investigated. Despite denying knowing anything about the antifascist group concerned last night, the person who blocked their event, while actively trying to do so, had said they had been involved in shooting and killing fascists. To back up this claim, he said he had been told it by a person who he named. Unfortunately for him, the named person saw the e-mails and turned up last night, saying he had always supported militant antifascism, the group concerned, and that the statements attributed to him were a blatant lie. No defence was offered by the liar himself. Surely he cannot be allowed to get away with this? We all heard what was said and many saw the e-mails.
a bit more
In response to the above
14.10.2009 09:58
I'm glad we agree :)
"I didn't go to the meeting and checked this morning to see how it went."
Well quite a lot of us were there and most of the people posting do seem to have attended. I can't see anyone saying anything that wasn't said. There was a rather nasty comment by someone who didn't attend earlier, but fortunately it was removed.
"The comments are just embarasing"
To whom?
"degenerating into shit"
There you go again. I'm sorry but I'm afraid you'll have to give more detail that just that (in your opinion) they are s**t.
"(the comment about attacking a terminally ill man for instance)"
I haven't seen that. Who is terminally ill?
"The comments serve no purpose."
Surely people are entitled to have their say (within certain boundaries of course.) This was an important meeting for many of us, and for the Common Place I think. There are also lessons to be drawn from this for the wider social centres movement.
"It is not news "
It is most certainly news for those who weren't there, those like yourself. Comments are just that, and in my opinion people are entitled to make them.
"it is just slanderous shit that will do no good."
There you go again. I'm afraid that isn't an argument.
Hilary
The road to a shit social centre is [sometimes] paved with good intentions
14.10.2009 10:15
Bob
Good to see this thread back
14.10.2009 11:26
Well done IMC
A report on last night's meeting has been posted up
14.10.2009 11:33
CP Member
Sorry, meant to post that to the other thread
14.10.2009 11:57
CP Member
I doubt this is over
14.10.2009 12:12
As for the 'physical' incident he launched at the CP (which I'll not go into further), there were plenty of witnesses to it as it happened during a gig. Why it wasn't investigated, I can't say, but if it had been the other way round there'd have been no end of tears, tantrums, and ultimatums.
B.R.
thursday meetings
14.10.2009 12:23
i hope this causes more people to turn up and get involved so a strong and diverse group is always at the core.
member
Clarification
14.10.2009 12:29
i hope this causes more people to turn up and get involved so a strong and diverse group is always at the core.
member "
Really? I thought there was now one open meeting and one closed one. That's what we were told last night. If we can all come to Thursday's meeting, why have the meeting last night?
Sorry, but some of us have better things to do, child-care, work, etc
clarification
14.10.2009 12:58
Decision making powers are only given to people who have attended a couple meetings.I.e you can't just walk in pay £2 and start to influence on direction. You have to show a very small amount of commitment and get a feel for the running of the place
The reason a separate meeting was called was partly because it had been discussed at prior meetings and was taking up too much time that should have been used for more day to day business. I also suspect that some people wanted to hear a wider opinion of common place membership who would not attend day to day running of the common place meetings because they prioritise other things in their life.
I'm pretty sure that is correct but as I don't actually attend thursday meetings I can't guarantee the accuracy of the above.
Seems pretty sensible to me
cp member
Last night's meeting
14.10.2009 13:06
Common as muck
Clarification
14.10.2009 13:12
Another member
Sorry, but some of us have better things to do, child-care, work, etc
14.10.2009 13:20
I'm an absentee member myself, as I have other meetings to attend on Thursday.
As such I show solidarity with the decisions made by those who make time to turn up on Thursdays and keep the place going (not overlooking the effort that goes in at other times, obviously) - even when if I don't necessarily agree with every decision.
If I really strongly disagree with something then the onus is on me to re-prioritise and start to find a way to attend the CP Thursday meetings.
Meanwhile, I think it's regrettable that some people go blowing off on a public forum about the decisions and actions other people take who actually do the routine decision-making, admin, and deal with the distasteful business of keeping the Council & Police at bay.
Another CPer
Another try
14.10.2009 13:21
...
Good post
14.10.2009 13:30
commonly miss meetings :(
Sorry, no edit.
14.10.2009 13:33
commonly miss meetings :(
Concensus
14.10.2009 13:44
Yes I'm a CP Member too!
Just obeying orders?
14.10.2009 14:20
AntiNazi
Clarification
14.10.2009 14:42
CP0
Attempt at censorship on Indymedia Northern
14.10.2009 15:14
Whisltle blower
corrections
14.10.2009 15:22
Yes 19:15 - 20:00 is the bookings collective meeting. so what.
After that is the general meeting 20:00 - 22:00. If you click on that you get to the page that describes how it is run
First an open house then the collective meeting which is open but you only have decision making power if you agree to be properly involved.
The link is below
http://www.thecommonplace.org.uk/events.html?task=view_detail&agid=304&year=2009&month=10&day=15
I've copied the relevant bit here for those too busy to investigate further themselves
Collective Meeting
The second half of the meeting is a meeting of the Collective, the members of which make decisions about what's going on at the Common Place. Non-members (of the Collective) can attend but only in a non-decision making capacity. See below about getting involved with the Collective.
The collective is based on the following principles:
- Direct democracy and participatory empowerment. The collective proactively welcomes anyone to join, and hopes as many people as possible will;
- That decisions should be made by the people who do the work, keep themselves informed and regularly turn up to meetings.
Joining
Membership of the collective will be granted to any CommonPlace member on the basis of self-nomination at the start of a Collective meeting; and a commitment to:
- do work
- keep themselves informed and
- regularly turn up to meetings.
Corrector
Another report
14.10.2009 15:37
There was some confusion at first if the meeting was going to start at 7 or 7.30. It started at the later time reasonably promptly. Everyone was chatting and friendly before the meeting, saying Hello to each other and introducing themselves. It seemed a lot more accesible than previous common place meetings I've been to, and a lot friendlier. Perhaps things are getting better after all!
We had to go in the big (gig) room for the meeting because there were so many people. I didn't count them but I estimate there were @ 40. Everyone sat in a circle as you'd expect. The intro was a bit wooly, maybe the person doing it was a bit shy, it was a bit unclear what we were there to discuss exactly though. A few attempts were made to clarify things. Then some people volunteered as moderators (like a chair but not!0 They did a reasonable job I thought. Though perhaps it'd been better with only one, and if one of the guys hadn't been in the collective concerned which of course meant he had a fair bit to say (fair enough) But it was pretty good on the whole.
The people attending were very polite and went out of their way to be respectful to each other. I had expected far more diversity of opinion, but there was surprisingly very little. Almost everyone there believed in a diversity of tactics, in user groups being free to organise so long as they didn't breach common place rules, and also very supportive of the antifascist group who had had the problem with their event.
I think there was only one person from the group there (perhaps a delegate) but others also spoke up for them and for antifascists in general.
A few people explained what exactly had happened and one or two people explained concensus.
The bloke who had 'blocked' the group using the space was there. He was asked what his objection had been. It got a bit confusing then. He didn't seem to know what or who he was talking about. He said that he couldn't find anything about them on the web and even that a well-known CP user had told him they didn't exist. The bloke from the group asked why he hadn't just e-mailed them and asked what their political position was. Then the first bloke contradicted himself and started quoting from the groups mission statement. The bloke from the group read it out, it sounded pretty good and not the least bit controversial. Then the other bloke said he had seen a sticker he didn't like.
People kept asking the bloke who had objected if he would like to say what he had against the antifascist group but he didn';t have anything to say. People were really trying to understand him, but it was hard. A common phrase was 'I just don't understand why all this has happened' and 'I don't understand why we all had to come down here for this'. A few people said that the bloke was entitled to hold whatever opinions he liked but that he shouldn't try to inflict his opinions on others.
There was some other stuff, not really anything heated (though a man was upset by some things wrongly attributed to him) there just didn't really seem to be much to argue about after all. A few people tried asking the bloke why he did what he had, but he didn't really have anything to say. He didn't apologize or anything though or offer a proper explanation.
A woman made a proposal statement saying that the antifascist group should be treated like any other user group and have use of the same facilities etc. I think that was agreed, at least there was no dissent. It was also pointed out that the bloke shouldn't have been able to block the group in the first place because that wasn't how concensus worked, which everyone agreed on.
There was talk of having some more discussion after a break, but then everyone sort of started chatting and went to the pub. People were still being friendly to the bloke who blocked the meeting and saying things like they used to think like him, etc.
I don't know how necessary the meeting was in the end. It didn't seem there was much that couldn't have been sorted out in 2 minutes. Still it had a positive feel to it. I hope that the collective involved and the bloke concerned learned from this, and that there's no more of this kind of victimization of antifascists or anyone else at the common place. with the license back I hope that the place will be put to good use and used by lots of radical groups.
anon
Nothing's changed
14.10.2009 15:44
Thanks for this Whistle Blower, because it's now very clear that the person who has caused all this trouble has learned absolutely nothing from this affair and that he continues with his lies and his passive-aggressive bullying as before. As long as he remains infecting the Common Place with his sectarianism, his lies, and his dictatorial attitude the longer this matter will drag on. He should be asked to leave.
Antifascist
Whitstle Blowing
14.10.2009 16:04
'I'm accused of being some kind of puppet-master'
No mate, just a fucking idiot
After last night it is sickening to have to read this shit
Spotlight
More lies from the same source
14.10.2009 16:47
No wonder everyone thinks hes an infiltrator when hes got fingers in every pie n seems determined to wreck the common place, Indymedia, n the 635 singlehanded
Quack
Further reading
14.10.2009 17:04
unimpressed
Interesting reading
14.10.2009 17:11
Your lies will find you
Pants on fire
14.10.2009 17:22
No Nazis In Leeds – Antifascists Picket BPP Mailbox
http://www.ukhippy.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-1768.html
A peaceful picket successfully defended against fash attack. Well done.
Porkie pies
J..J...Janus
14.10.2009 17:57
I see what you mean. How bizarre when the very same person was the one spreading the story about He Who Causeth The Bother attacking the CP's computer and planting surveillance equipment on behalf of the cops. Now is that a lie?
ETTG
Reports
14.10.2009 18:12
My 2ps worth
Censorship by Northern Indymedia - The shits line up
14.10.2009 18:26
whistler's mother
Censorship by dickheads
14.10.2009 18:46
If you want to direct people to an open archive you might at least have the gumption not to stick the word censorship in front of the link.
Open archive? do you get it?
How about addressing some of the substantive points made?
And why don't you work out who the enemies really are?
The fash must laughing their socks off at your antics.
Northern
Mr 2p
14.10.2009 18:48
The 635 group should sort themselves out and chuck this idiot out or spend the next 5 years running round after him trying to undo the damage he does and rebuild relationships that he destroys.
just an opinion
Goodbye Common Place
14.10.2009 18:55
anon
You weren't there were you low-life?
14.10.2009 19:06
What the fuck is that about? No reason for such a turnout? It's not like anyone co-ordinated it. People turned up out of concern and solidarity. Weren't the 635 Group invited, their members are CP members too? As it was, there was only one person from the group there.
The CP fucked-up and were dealing with it? It was the CP that called the meeting and invited people.
If you'd been there (instead of just trolling) it would be obvious to you that this wasn't some kind of personal vendetta. Or are you The Great Liar himself?
Smears and lies against antifascists is all your kind can ever muster.
Non-aligned Antifa
2p is about your 'Just an opinion' is worth
14.10.2009 19:20
...
Troll?
14.10.2009 19:33
Gobsmacked
Hey "northerner"
14.10.2009 19:39
Why don't YOU and your idiot mate work out who the enemies really are, and stop attacking antifascists? The cops and the BNP must love you Jimbo
WM
This whole sad saga
14.10.2009 19:45
@
Stop smearing antifascists with your lies
14.10.2009 21:39
Last night's meeting, which you very obviously weren't at, may indeed turn out ultimately to be a waste of time. That's hardly the fault of the antifascists and anarchists who turned up in support of fair play though is it? People clearly turned up because they were concerned about what is happening at the Common Place and why a group were being victimized. Also because this clearly has implications for the future use of the building by many user groups besides antifascists. It was the Common Place that arranged the meeting and invited people to attend, so why shouldn't they? You imply that members were somehow poking their noses in to matters that didn't concern them! It wasn't the 635 Group that organised the meeting and only member of the group appeared to be there. If we were 'duped' as you put it, it certainly wasn't by them.
As for 'sorting themselves out', this group of antifascists were shown support and respect by those who attended, and why not, they do a good job? A shame they can't just get on with doing it, without cowards like you sniping at them and without having their time wasted dealing with a disgraceful situation created by ONE PERSON at the Common Place.
Leeds @ctivist
Yawn
14.10.2009 22:03
So the 635 group weren't supposed to know about this meeting? If that's the case it absolutely stinks.
Or is this total crap, like the rest of your post 'just an opinion'?
So tired of wankers like this
[shakes head in despair]
14.10.2009 22:28
If anyone who was there hasn't read his version of last night prepare to be shocked!
T
on consensus
14.10.2009 22:38
If this is what happens in a place where, as the orginal poster admits, only about 5 or so come to the meetings doesn't it suggest that consensus is maybe not the best methord by which to smash the bougiose and their state? then we have people talking about forcing them out, just vote...your in a majority you win, minority you dont gutted, better luck next time, working class power is going to involve oppressing a minority-the rich- that's democracy, no need to kick the poor hippy out.
All this and no debate about the real issue...is violence sometimes nessacary to achive our aims, in this case fighting facisism.
just thought id make the point
now please delete this thread.
greg
Chinny Chin!!
14.10.2009 22:48
'at the start of the
meeting it was agreed that we'd take a break after an hour. I said
during that hour that I'd return to the substantive point of
disagreement later. After the break I returned to find that most of the
other participants had left, so I didn't actually get a chance to
explain in detail why I had an objection to this group using the building'
Is this guy for real??!!! Unbelievable!!!!
Jimmy Hill
Why?
14.10.2009 22:54
???
Fair play greg
14.10.2009 23:00
Night-Owl
Innacuracies and Slander
14.10.2009 23:12
"there are a lot of factual innacuracies here, some forgivable, some slanderous"
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-northern/2009-October/1014-af.html
Another person has many reasons for the article to be removed:
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-northern/2009-October/1014-w1.html
The above emails are in reference to repost of this article to the Northern site:
https://northern-indymedia.org/articles/233
The place to request that an article on indymedia.org.uk is hidden is here:
http://lists.indymedia.org/imc-uk-moderation
Northerner
Trying to keep it behind closed doors
14.10.2009 23:30
I don’t agree with this at all, but it appears to refer to the comments rather than the original post (these have already been removed from the Northern version and the OP edited.)
“Another person has many reasons for the article to be removed”
I agree with what others have said regarding this persons comments – they’re rubbish. In any case i don’t see them as being reasons to remove the original post which is a lot fairer to him than it could have been.
“The above emails are in reference to repost of this article to the Northern site”
- “Make of this what you will. I'm not going to try to influence your
decision how to act.” – That surprises me because he’s usually busy stamping his little feet.
“The place to request that an article on indymedia.org.uk is hidden is here:”
You lot really are very keen to try and hide this aren’t you?
Yorkshire Born & Bred
"it appears to refer to the comments"
14.10.2009 23:48
"it appears to refer to the comments rather than the original post"
Are you sure, the email is a direct reply to the one it quotes, which contains:
> Please could you all take a look at article 233, "Common Place users
> meet to support antifascism" ?
This is article 233, the "original post":
https://northern-indymedia.org/articles/233
Also another person has said that:
"it should be hidden as an attack"
And:
"it has been verified as inaccurate it should be hidden on that basis"
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-northern/2009-October/1014-iu.html
It appears that Northern activists consider the article too inaccurate for our local Indymedia site.
Northerner
I was there too
15.10.2009 00:08
After reading this though http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-northern/2009-October/1014-w1.html
...
He just comes across as a cynical liar and I find it hard now not to think of him just as a pompous twerp at best.
anarchist student
"Northern activists"
15.10.2009 00:17
Northern Activist
Northerner
15.10.2009 00:24
Yorkshire Born & Bred
"an objection to this group using the building"
15.10.2009 00:26
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-northern/2009-October/1014-w1.html
It would be interesting to read his detailed objections to this group using the building, if anyones sees him perhaps they could request that he tries to find time to document these objections?
Lopsided
Comment
15.10.2009 00:29
It would have been interesting to HEAR them last night! That's what the meeting was supposed to be for. And he was asked enough times to give his fucking reasons.
.
PS
15.10.2009 00:30
.
Did he have a chance?
15.10.2009 00:35
"when one person is trying to respond to 40 people's questions it's normal to be confused"
And:
"I wasn't given an opportunity to express my politics"
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-northern/2009-October/1014-w1.html
Lopsided
Think this is better advice on the whole
15.10.2009 00:35
Perhaps he would be better advised to stop slagging off other CP members for a change. I think a lot of folk have just about had a bellyful of him.
YB&B
A VERY fair chance
15.10.2009 00:44
YB&B
Put upon
15.10.2009 00:49
It's good that you give someone you don't know the benefit of the doubt my friend. Unfortunately, those of us who do know this man recognise this as him typically disingenuous. He is rather an expert at causing unpleasantness and then trying to make out he's the victim when he's challenged. Someone earlier used the phrase 'passive-aggressive' - that about sums his behaviour up.
YB&B
Last night
15.10.2009 01:14
Shutting down
Don't give up the fight...
15.10.2009 08:38
Is it really time to give up on the Common Place, already?
Good luck with the meeting tonight, looking forwards to a report from it...
Evicted
Deafening silence
15.10.2009 08:48
At least then we can ridicule (once more) those we know involved for being led so completely and utterly down this destructive path by their fucked up leader.
Weary
Why not email Northern Indymedia your concerns?
15.10.2009 09:09
imc-northern@lists.indymedia.org
Your email should appear on their publicly archived lists here:-
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-northern/2009-October/date.html
..unless it is being censored of course, which would be against the transparency guidelines for the global Indymedia network.
(hint hint)
Anonymouse
Troll
15.10.2009 09:19
So your names fucking 'Weary' is it?
If you're not a fascist or a cop trolling for information then you're doing a very good impression of one.
RNB
Unravelling the lies
15.10.2009 10:10
“In the interests of truth I think it's in need of moderation”
Because you’ve already done SOOOO much for truth, along with your major contributions to honesty, sincerity, and a lack of censorship. Hard to believe that you’re talking about the original post in this thread, a rather brief, and perhaps rambling, but accurate account of a meeting you caused to happen.
“it's a direct attack on me”
Hardly. A direct attack on you would be a lot more candid.
“I'm accused of being some kind of puppet-master”
The fact that you’re manipulative and have a few sock-puppets at hand, hardly makes you that.
“I think that the rest of the collective should decide
whether to hide it / make an addition / write another piece / whatever.”
Oh of course they’ll decide for themselves. And if they don’t agree with you you’ll flounce or threaten to flounce as usual. Or maybe you’ll start a crusade against them and leave antifascists alone for a bit.
“ 'a lot of members came together' - I was there, I'm a commonplace
regular and I didn't recognise a lot of them, so it's quite possible
there were people other than members there”
Typically, this just oozes arrogance. I saw people at the meeting from Earth First!, Hunt Sabs, people from Leeds Action for Radical Change, from the old Leeds Social Centre meetings, from AFA, Class War, Animal Rights groups, the Anarchist Federation, and more. You’ve been around 2 minutes feller, and nobody trusts you, so don’t be surprised if you’re not on speaking terms with everyone at The Common Place. Many of the people there BUILT the Common Place, but you wouldn’t know that.
“ 'a meeting which was to discuss the opposition of an antifascist group
holding meetings there.' - the meeting was called as a forum for a
political discussion about whether violent groups should be able to use
the space, however people interrupted the introduction to the discussion
even before the ground rules had been set”
Before the ground rules had been set? Wasn’t that an inclusive process? The meeting had two moderators and people put their hands up before speaking. As far as the rest of us were concerned there are no “violent” groups using the Common Place, and you (on the night) had nothing to say to the contrary.
“ 'caused by a pacifist' - this refers to me, but I didn't identify myself
as a pacifist”
Isn’t it understandable that people would refer to you in those terms when you self-identify as a pacifist, and when you constantly try to inflict your views on others?
“ 'He admitted that he didn’t actually know anything about the antifascist
group anyway.' - during the discussion 'the antifascist group' changed
it's name from 'antifa' to 'the 635 group' and back again, hence the
confusion”
More dishonesty. We were there to talk about one group, the group that applied to use the building, the group that you blocked, the group that you lied about previously, and the group whose name is referred to in all the minutes and correspondence relating to this issue – the 635 Group. Antifa were only mentioned when you started clutching at straws and whining about a sticker you had seen. When you were asked what you had against this group it was very explicitly said who they were, and they were referred to by that name throughout the entire meeting.
“ 'It was agreed that what he done was wrong.' - there was no such
proposal made “
Apart from yourself, I doubt that there is even a single person there at the meeting who thinks you have not “done wrong.”
“ 'It was also agreed that the committee he was a part of had had an
improper understanding of consensus decision making' - there was no such
proposal made”
This was quite explicitly agreed and you went along with it.
“ 'a well-established group that use the place.' - neither 635 group nor
antifa are regular users of the building (check our calendar) nor do
they have a page on our website (check it www.thecommonplace.org.uk)”
Thanks to you, antifascists have not been able to use the Common Place for sometime now. If you had been a member for any length of time, and if anyone trusted you, you would know that antifascist events are not put on the calendar.
“ 'It was agreed that the group had as much right to use the Common Place
as anyone else and that this guy couldn’t block groups like that in the
future...' - it was made clear at the start of the meeting, before the
interruptions began, that this was a consultation meeting and had no
decision making powers “
That was the proposal made at the meeting, a proposal it was suggested was “fed-in” to the Thursday meeting. It was made to try and wrap the meeting up as I doubt everyone (apart from perhaps yourself) wanted to be there all night, particularly when you had so very little to say.
“ 'People didn’t really feel it necessary to go through the whole violence
v non-violence debate because they all agreed...' - at the start of the
meeting it was agreed that we'd take a break after an hour. I said
during that hour that I'd return to the substantive point of
disagreement later. After the break I returned to find that most of the
other participants had left, so I didn't actually get a chance to
explain in detail why I had an objection to this group using the building”
This is so pathetic it is almost laughable. We sat there there for around 90 minutes, during which time it became obvious that you had no logical reason to oppose this group, who you claimed to know nothing about. You said nothing about ‘returning’ to anything, not least to somewhere you hadn’t been to in the first place. Most of us came to hear what you had to say, you had ample opportunity to put your case and were given every encouragement to do so. You had almost NOTHING to say. It should have been clear to everyone that the meeting was over after 90 minutes, that was quite long enough, and we had a much better meeting in the pub thank you.
“ '...(who seemed pretty confused actually.)' - when one person is trying
to respond to 40 people's questions it's normal to be confused”
This is also rubbish. You weren’t questioned by 40 people. There was essentially only one question. The answers you gave were palpable rubbish.
“ '...this guy is always doing something like this.' - unsubstantiated rumour “
Would you really like to see examples go up on Indymedia?
“ 'politics that most users reject.' - this has not been established, as I
wasn't given an opportunity to express my politics “
You were given EVERY opportunity, as you have been in the past. Most Common Place members reject pacifism along with sectarianism.
“ Make of this what you will. I'm not going to try to influence your
decision how to act.”
Oh no, far be it for you to want your own way.
Sickened by this Dishonesty
Woof!
15.10.2009 10:20
M doesnt have to do these sort of things himself - he has his faithful lapdog to do that!
Meow!
Troll Alert
15.10.2009 10:33
I think that's pretty obvious. One of the problems with these kind of sectarian attacks is that it's our enemies who profit - one of the reasons experienced activists avoid this kind of stuff if they've any sense.
I assume that the 635 group are waiting until at least after the public meeting before issuing any form of statement - if they do so at all. Why should they provide entertainment for the fascists, police, and all the other sad bastards who troll indymedia anyway? Why take it outside the common place?
Mac
my reading
15.10.2009 11:04
will
we are too nice sometimes
15.10.2009 11:16
@narcho-girl
Destructive?
15.10.2009 11:27
What, like applying to hold an event at the common place? Yeah that's turned out to be pretty fucking destructive.
Fair play on keeping your piece 635. Don't feed the trolls.
635 supporter
Name calling - RNB
15.10.2009 11:34
This thread is may well be the death blow to the common place, thus finishing the work of the cops. I'm not suggesting you have been infiltrated (that would be blatently wrong and childish) but you are doing their work.
Who's next boys?
Yes Weary
hidden on northern imc
15.10.2009 11:55
The following reasons were given:
This is being hidden for several reasons. Firstly, it has been flagged as an inacurate version of events from 2 seperate sources who were there. Secondly, it strays away from being news and into the territory of a personal attack against one individual. This is not what IMC Northern is for in my opinion, as a base for accusations, intrigue and attacks.
If someone would like to rewrite the article accurately and without using it to attack one person as this does, then I agree that it would be considered news and should stay up.
Lets all show some solidarity
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-northern-moderation/2009-October/1015-sz.html
oddjob
Homepage: http://northern-indymedia.org/articles/233
Public accounts from real people vs anon net hearsay
15.10.2009 12:21
"it's a direct attack on me, and I'm accused of being some kind of puppet-master"
"I didn't actually get a chance to explain in detail why I had an objection to this group using the building"
"I wasn't given an opportunity to express my politics"
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-northern/2009-October/1014-w1.html
And another email from someone using their full name:
"there are a lot of factual innacuracies here, some forgivable, some slanderous"
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-northern/2009-October/1014-af.html
And then on the other hand all the comments above which appear to be from different people at the meeting (but what evidence is there that they are?), so the comments above have all been dismissed as:
"a forum for slander and intrigue"
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-northern/2009-October/1014-iu.html
Which is directed at:
"those who more than any other in the uk this year have been out on the streets and active"
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-moderation/2009-October/1014-w5.html
And speculation about this matter via email is not wanted from people who don't know exactly what the situation is with the group in question:
"I would prefer that people do not continue speculation about the common place on this list. As i know exactly what the situation is with the group in question, i would ask that maybe if people are curious they go along to the common place themselves and ask the members. Better still, get involved in a well respected and hard won autonomous radical space which is run in a non heirarchical manner along anarchist principles."
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-moderation/2009-October/1014-9o.html
Perhaps after the meeting tonight some other credible witnesses will be prepared to give their side of the story in a manner which can't be dismissed as "slander and intrigue"?
If not activists from outside Leeds are probably going to continue to back and support "those who more than any other in the uk this year have been out on the streets and active", the creators of Northern Indymedia and threads like this will be hidden, as the first one was because:
"the post has now just become an argument about indymedia and CP and dodgy dealings and getting very personal"
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-moderation/2009-October/1013-z0.html
Ironically Anon
What a monsterous ego
15.10.2009 15:17
experienced activist
Yes - Troll (Weary)
15.10.2009 15:24
It's the vicious sectarianism of one person that threatens the common place. This group (who you know absolutely nothing about) haven't attacked anyone. Nor have they attempteed to take over any of the movement's power structures.
Your lies and smears serve only one purpose troll. Our movement is stronger than you realise.
Fuck the Liars
Indymedia Trolling
15.10.2009 15:33
Leeds Indy
Does anyone else find it confising ...
15.10.2009 15:50
But when a poster who implies he knows members of the 635 group and their leader (do that have a leader?) posts about it he is told 'This group (who you know absolutely nothing about) '
Having it both ways
Speculation?
15.10.2009 15:53
People aren't speculating about about the Common Place are they? They are are speculating about YOU - Probably with good reason.
"those who more than any other in the uk this year have been out on the streets and active"
Fancy having to rely on a quote from YOURSELVES to big YOURSELVES up!! Out on the streets and active, which streets were those exactly?!! You've certainly been active in fucking over other activists. You're good at tapping key-boards I'll give you that!
Black n Red
How to fight this..
15.10.2009 16:06
However if enough people email them right now to disagree, they will have a hard time justifying their decision. If you were at the meeting please do this.
They can be emailed here:-
imc-northern@lists.indymedia.org
and your email should appear on the imc northern email list (below) within 10 minutes, unless they are censoring their lists:-
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-northern/2009-October/date.html
hint hint hint
Finding it strange
15.10.2009 16:06
'But when a poster who implies he knows members of the 635 group and their leader (do that have a leader?) posts about it he is told 'This group (who you know absolutely nothing about) '
Actually I can understand that, a very basic Google search will give you basic information on a number of activities carried out by this group, as well as their founding statement.
The group seem to be mainly anarchists, they don't have a leader (though the fascists who despite their claims actually know very little about our movement seem to think otherwise.) Antifascists regularly wind up fascist splits on the internet and I think this post is an example of a fascist doing the same in reverse. That is why this sort of speculation is so damaging and why any decent activist would not engage in it. It's regrettable that there have been attacks on fellow Leeds activists. We may not all agree on everything, but we're all part of the same movement. People should respect that and not play into the hands of the state. I wasn't at this meeting, but I can't see why people are getting so upset about this report (some of the comments, yes.) If people recall a different version of events, they can simply post up a report, that is what Indymedia is all about surely? I don't see any reason to remove this post, but perhaps some comment 'moderation' is in order for those who cannot moderate themselves.
Tom
hint, hint, hint
15.10.2009 16:12
Hinternet
Call yourselves "activists"
15.10.2009 16:17
Shame on you
Tonight's meeting
15.10.2009 16:46
Good luck CP
CP links
15.10.2009 17:18
antifa are regular users of the building (check our calendar) nor do
they have a page on our website (check it www.thecommonplace.org.uk)”
What a stupid naive twat! Anti-fascist events or links have never been put on the Common Place website so as not to endanger the building and other Common Place members. Now the insecure ramblings of this insecure idiot are putting people in danger. The harm he has caused with his big mouth probably cannot be repaired.
I was involved with the Common Place when it very first started (and for sometime after) and I'm sure that I'm not the only person to remember which group had the very first benefit gig there.
This bloke deserves kicking out for this alone. Why did people think he could ever be trusted? Smarten up people.
Staying Secure
to the poster...
16.10.2009 01:46
just wanted to respond to your comment without becoming embroiled in this thread myself.
Just to say that it wasn't reposted by one of imc northern as far as i'm aware, but by someone here on this thread most likely. The reason it was hidden (by myself) is that there were two postings to our list saying it was inaccurate and none to say otherwise. We have to go on what is reported to this line of open and publicly archived communication and as you can imagine would not base a moderation decision on imc uk comments. Sorry your email hasn't been replied to yet, which list did you send it to? Are you a member of that list? The reason i ask is that indy lists are set up so that non members have their emails held until a moderator can look at it and make sure it's not spam. This isn't unique to us, most lists are set up this way. It can be a bit slow as most of our list moderators are still feeling their way around it but it'll be looked at asap once it arrives.
It would be great if those on this thread who have queries about how imc northern operates come along to our next meeting so this can all be discussed face to face, which benefits everyone. In the meantime, the place to raise concerns about moderation decisions made by the collective is on the imc-northern-moderation mailing list rather than here as most of our collective members don't read uk indy so won't be aware of your grievances.
The shape, stance and scope of reporting on the northern site is worked out by those who come along to meetings, chat on the mailing lists and read and write the news. We hope to provide a more positive slant on northern activism than is currently available, for which we need your help. If anyone feels their campaign and beliefs that they feel strongly about could be better represented, then please come along and lend a hand.
Off the top of my head, i think the next meeting is at the 1in12 club in bradford on the first sunday in november (though don't quote me on that - it's very late) but full details will be posted to the imc northern mailing list and on the site in due course. All are welcome to attend and i hope that those with grievances against us for whatever reason will come along to try to see how we can resolve these.
Solidarity
jimdog
e-mail: imc-northern@lists.indymedia.org
Homepage: http://northern-indymedia.org
don't expect people who care about the truth to be making posts
16.10.2009 16:10
'maybe [the comments have all been posted by] one activist who wants to say the same thing over & over again?'
'don't expect people who care about the truth to be making posts [to indymedia uk].'
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-network/2009-October/1015-va.html
list reader
to newbie
17.10.2009 10:37
Thanks for reporting on that meeting you went to. Wish more people did the same.
b.
Hide 23 hidden comments or hide all comments