Common Place users meet to support antifascism

newbie | 13.10.2009 22:52 | Anti-racism | Free Spaces

The Common PLace in Leeds has had some bad reports recently here on Indymedia, but tonight a lot of members came together to support antifascism

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.

newbie

Additions

Abusive comments will be hidden

15.10.2009 18:04

Please keep it civil:

"Articles and/or comments may be hidden for the following reasons:

Personal attack: Articles and/or comments that contain abusive language against other activists or site users. Please make your point without resorting to personal abuse."

https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/static/editorial.html

Indy Admin

Hey Indymedia!

15.10.2009 23:40

Hi everyone! I'm the person who wrote the article here, the report on the meeting. I really didn't think it'd be in any way controversial, it's just an account of what happened, there were plenty of people there to verify it. I'm kinda surprised at the reaction from some people - well that is an understatement actually. I only put it up on Indymedia not on the northern site as I couldn't link to it. When it appeared there it was edited, I don't mind so much, but it wasn't me that posted it there. I don't know why it's been hidden because I think it was someone from the northern indymedia group who put it up. I tried emailing them to find out what was going on in line with a suggestion on this thread, but they've just ignored my email and it hasn't gone up on the list. What's going on, I feel that I'm stuck in some kind of indymedia war here!? I was just trying to be helpful by posting up what had happened at the mmeting. Sorry if I offended anyone.

PS I didn't go to the meeting tonight 'cos I was doing something else. Sorry.

newbie xx

Comments

Hide the following 79 comments

PS

13.10.2009 23:00

Forgot to say this: When the pacifist guy was asked why he objected to the antifascists he said he had seen a sticker from an antifascist group with a bloke being shot in the head on it. It was pointed out that this was a picture of Hitler committing suicide!

newbie

Comment

13.10.2009 23:07

I guess this is a reasonably faire report, but can't say I share the view that the matter is over. I'd be surprised if antifascists want to use the Common Place again and I think it will only be a matter of time before this person causes more trouble - either for antifascists or for some other group. The Common Place can be a bit too nicey-nicey sometimes - really they should be saying to this bloke "Look, we've had enough of you now, you've caused a lot of trouble and nobody trusts you. Now go away please." I very much doubt that will happen.

Antifascist

A further point

13.10.2009 23:09

On behalf of the antifascists of Leeds I'd just like to say a big thanks to all those comrades who came down to the Common Place tonight to show their support. Absolutely fantastic.

Antifascist

Reasonably well-run

13.10.2009 23:26

The facilitators deserve some thanks too I feel. The meeting was quite well run, though I think its purpose could have made clearer at the beginning of it. Of course it helped that there was one person who was mumbling one thing and everyone else saying another basically. He got an easy ride all things considered (and did a lot of back-peddling.)

anon

Left a nasty taste in my mouth

14.10.2009 00:01

This was still a nasty sectarian attack on members of the CP by someone with a track-record of doing the same. He twisted and squirmed and back-peddled and wasn't afraid to stray far from the truth (even lie through his teeth.) He has already done too many bad things not to be shown the door IMO. Fat chance! If he had any integrity he would have walked tonight instead of sitting there looking like he was about to cry. I feel sorry for the bloke in a way 'cos he clearly has some 'issues', but let's not underestimate the harm and unpleasantness he has caused. Sling your hook feller.

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

we all have to take some responsibility

14.10.2009 08:10

I am glad things have been resolved to some degree however it should never have got to this . The reason it has is because there is a hierarchy of sorts operating at CP. We cant just blame one person for this situation - we must all take responsibility because we let it happen. So in future we need to take a stand and feel confident to challenge things that are wrong and not let things spiral out of control like this has.

collective responsibility

Stop this thread

14.10.2009 08:58

This thread has already degenerated into shit.

Please close it now.

It is pathetic

stop this thread

not over

14.10.2009 09:10

I very much doubt if this matter has been sorted out. We have a person with very extremeist views that are different from most CP users - and he can be very ruthless in terms of getting his own way - And hes on every collective and commitee going. As long as he is tolerated these things will happen - it will only be a matter of time before he causes more trouble and harms the CP again. If he won't leave he should be expelled and unfortunately CP users are going to have the courage to face up to that.

sceptic

sceptic

Why?

14.10.2009 09:14

"This thread has already degenerated into shit."

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

Just to say that I thought it was very well run. Everyone had the chance to say what they thought, especially the bloke at the centre of this. While most people probably knew what they thought before hand they also seemed very fair and open minded. It also very obviously wasn't 'blocks' of people who had come, in fact there seemed to be only 1 person there from the group affected by all this. It was a very good mix of users with people there of all ages.

anon

P.S.

14.10.2009 09:28

Sorry! just to add that there was a very good atmosphere among all the people who came with most going to the pub after. There was obviously a lot of warmth and solidarity between preople even though many of them didn't know each other. It was good that so many people turned up.

anon

The news is there

14.10.2009 09:30

I'm not against the news being there. It is great news. I didn't go to the meeting and checked this morning to see how it went.

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

"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. "

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 not against the news being there. It is great news."

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

The really vicious comments and lies are not being told by those who were at last nights meeting but by people who claim not to have been or people who think their defending the common place. Reality Check - you're not doing it any good at all. The CP was set up as a radical social centre lets get it back on track - debate is part of that - there've been enough lies and coverups already.

Bob

thursday meetings

14.10.2009 12:23

thursday meetings remain open for anyone to come and start getting directly involved with the common place.
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

"thursday meetings remain open for anyone to come and start getting directly involved with the common place.
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

Thursday meetings are open.
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

Bearing in mind what had happened I thought the pacifist chap was treated very respectfully, fairly, and kindly. Everyone made a special effort to see his point of view and to hear what he had to say. He didn't really seem to have anything much to say for himself though despite being given numerous opportunities to speak - either to put forward his point of view, explain why he had done what he had, or to say what he had against the antifascists. When he was asked direct questions such as what he had against the antifascist group, he just lokked around like it was nothing to do with him and ignored the question. Also when the other older chap referred to the e-mails in which he had lied, he didn't respond at all. He also contradicted himself numerous times, for example saying he didn't know anything about the group, when it was minuted he had said they were violent and 'bad for society'. Then he started pretending he hadn't really objected to them and going on about procedure. He just seemed not to have much of a clue politically. Sadly, he didn't choose to apologise either though.

Common as muck

Clarification

14.10.2009 13:12

That does all sound sensible cp member, but I'm not sure it's accurate. It's how things used to work, but it was changed a while back I think, so open and closed meetings alternate. Some people dropped out because they saw this as 'undemocratic' or creating a hierarchy. The meeting where the anti-fascist group were blocked was a closed one. I think this is when the "Common Place Collective" or "Management Committee" (I have heard both terms used) have their meetings. Sorry if that is not all right, like a lot of people, I'm also a bit confused. There's also the "Bookings Collective" as well and some others I think.

Another member

Sorry, but some of us have better things to do, child-care, work, etc

14.10.2009 13:20

That's fair enough

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 point 'collective responsibility', though sometimes it's hard to know what is really going on behind the (all too frequently) locked doors of The Common Place. For me, one of the points that stood out last night though was the amount of prevarication being given for what amounted to an attack on the antifascists, and that when it came down to it there was basically no reason whatsoever to be objecting to them. The individual who had so strongly objected to them (and been allowed to get away with this by most if not all of his fellow collective members), when challenged, couldn't come up with a single bad thing to say about them. He made the unlikely claim that he could not find out anything about them on the internet (a woman in the audience said it took her just a few minutes) then that someone had told him that the group didn't in fact exist (because in the words of the person, "He probably thought I was a cop.") He then started going on about a sticker he had seen showing a man being shot and bearing the name of a group/movement which may or may not have been related. As has already been pointed out this was a sticker (I believe it actually says 'Do the right thing') with an image of Adolf Hitler shooting himself. There was nothing more. I just hope that this situation doesn't come up everytime someone wants to show a film about the Palestinian resistance or the miner's strike. The best way to ensure that is the correct use of concensus, participation by all of us, and I'm afraid to have to say this, but perhaps the person concerned (who in my view still has to take the major share of responsibility) has to be asked to leave.

...

Good post

14.10.2009 13:30

That's a good post CP member. I agree with just about everything you say. I think most of the complaints are about the same person though. As for keeping the police at bay, some would say they haven't been. I admit it's not an easy job for the relatively small number of people who put real effort into the CP, but I dare say there job would be a lot easier if they didn't have one bossy-boots digging his heels in against everyone else all the time, if there weren't the attacks on other users and the constant strops, and if they didn't have to arrange extra meetings cos this has all been such a waste of time. There's enough to do at the CP without causing more work and hacking off existing members who might otherwise be willing to help out.

commonly miss meetings :(

Sorry, no edit.

14.10.2009 13:33

Sorry that last post was in relation to Another CPer's post. Sorry.

commonly miss meetings :(

Concensus

14.10.2009 13:44

On the subject of concensus, as was said last night, when a group or collective state that they are relying on concensus decision making, it really is important that they understand exactly what that means and involves. Concensus decision making has been misinterpreted or gotten wrong before at the CP, and in this case I think the collective concerned included some experienced people. Still, they got it wrong I'm afraid. If there had been a proper understanding of the way concensus works it is arguable that this situation would never have come about. Concensus decision making should in practice be a much fairer system than simple majority voting, yet the way it was interpreted in this instance it clearly wasn't. People really shouldn't say that they are using concensus unless they know what it means. Thanks to those who helpfully explained it last night.

Yes I'm a CP Member too!

Just obeying orders?

14.10.2009 14:20

For someone who claims to know nothing about the Antifa group it's funny this bloke has been involved in causing them shit on at least 2 occassions.

AntiNazi

Clarification

14.10.2009 14:42

I'm pretty sure that Thursday's meeting is closed. The website says: "Thursday, 15 October 19:15 - 20:00 Bookings Collective meeting"

CP0

Attempt at censorship on Indymedia Northern

14.10.2009 15:14

http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-northern/2009-October/1014-w1.html

Whisltle blower

corrections

14.10.2009 15:22

The ignorance of the workings of the common place and willingness to jump to wrong and bad conclusions is disapointing.

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

For what it's worth here's another recollection of last night's meeting:

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

http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-northern/2009-October/1014-w1.html

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

More lies from the same source

14.10.2009 16:47

I was at the meeting last night n it seems there was 39 of us in one meeting and 1 off somewhere in lala land. Us that were there KNOW what was said. Isn't this geezer a psychiatrist or summat? Talk about Physician Heal Thyself!

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

Pants on fire

14.10.2009 17:22

I was there last nite when the bloke said he couldn't find owt about the antifascists on the internet [!!!] Even with my shit laptop it took about 5 seconds to get this:

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

Reports

14.10.2009 18:12

Personally I didn't take such a positive view. As far as I am concerned a load of us were dragged down to the common place uneccesarily (out of a sense of solidarity) because of a nasty attack on comrades. When we got there the person from the collective seemed to have no clear idea what the purpose of the meeting was - supposedly it was to save time on Thursday but we were told we couldn't make any decisions. Then the individual who had caused all the bollocks wriggled and squirmed and basically said fuck all that made sense. There was a lot of hand waving and tooing and froing and it didn't really get anywhere beyond saying the collective don't know their consensus from their cojones, that we shouldn't have all had to traipse down there, and that it won't happen again - which I very much doubt. That's MY report.

My 2ps worth

Goodbye Common Place

14.10.2009 18:55

I used to be involved in the Comon Place far more than I've been for the last couple of years. After last night's meeting I was feeling that it might be worth getting back involved. After reading M's comments on the Northern IMC list though I've changed my mind. Nobody whose involved with anything outside the CP has the energy to deal with people like that all the time. I'd rather do other stuff.

anon

2p is about your 'Just an opinion' is worth

14.10.2009 19:20

So far, despite an awful lot of provocation, the 635 Group haven't even issued a public statement about this so as not to embarrass the Common Place and provide amusement for our enemies. If all the interfering wankers prefer that situation to continue they might do well to stop slating a group they know little about and have no connection to.

...

This whole sad saga

14.10.2009 19:45

This whole sad saga shows once again what every anarchist should know - POWER CORRUPTS. People should realize that.

Stop smearing antifascists with your lies

14.10.2009 21:39

"Yes it was a waste of your time. There was no reason for such a turnout. The common place fucked up and were dealing with it. Unfortunately someone from the 635 group found out and used it to sort out a petty personal vendetta. You were all duped."

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

[shakes head in despair]

14.10.2009 22:28

Just read this

http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-northern/2009-October/1014-w1.html - what a pack of lies from beginning to end! This bloke had EVERY opportunity to put his case - HE DIDN'T HAVE ONE! Now he's giving a version of events which around 40 people know not to be true. This is hardly going to heal the rift at the Common Place is it? Guess that's not his intention though.

If anyone who was there hasn't read his version of last night prepare to be shocked!

on consensus

14.10.2009 22:38

err not being funny..so one guy caused all this bollocks, which has now caused 2 tense meetings and loads of stupid internet threads. this for me proves why voting is better than consensus descion making....
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

I particularly like this load of cobblers [though it's all incredible stuff] -

'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

are some people so keen to get this thread deleted?

???

Fair play greg

14.10.2009 23:00

Aye can share your frustrations greg. concensus can work pretty well exccept when you get somebody playing the system so to speak. Or if it's not ben used right - which seems to have hapened in this case. P'haps they should vote the hippy out? No? LOL!

Night-Owl

Innacuracies and Slander

14.10.2009 23:12

One person who was at the meeting wants it hidden because:

"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

"there are a lot of factual innacuracies here, some forgivable, some slanderous"

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

Yorkshire Born & Bred said:

"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

"Northern activists"

15.10.2009 00:17

"Northern activists" Don't make me laugh! You're a clique of techie-nerds who've taken over Northern Indymedia in what many genuine activists and former IMCers regard as quite a ruthless coup. You include at least one bloke who's currently at the centre of a lot of trouble who lives in a house bigger than my housing co-op who nobody had even heard of 18 months ago. And he's some cheek takling about 'slander and inaccuracies' considering his recent track record. Don't try and speak for Northern Activists.

Northern Activist

Northerner

15.10.2009 00:24

Northerner, those quotes are just from people in the small charmed inner circle of Northern Indymedia. That hardly lends them any credibility. There were at least 40 people at that meeting last night and we all know what was said. M is doing what he usually does, which is avoiding what Jeffrey Archer referred to as the "actualite". J's comments surprise me, but she's sitting on the fence as she often does, and probably doesn't want to incur the wrath of The Dark Lord.

Yorkshire Born & Bred

"an objection to this group using the building"

15.10.2009 00:26

"I didn't actually get a chance to explain in detail why I had an objection to this group using the building"

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 be interesting to read his detailed objections to this group using the building"

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

Oh yeah I forgot - he seen a sticker!!!

Did he have a chance?

15.10.2009 00:35

He seems to have felt put-upon:

"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

Lopsided said - 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?

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

That's a very fair question Lopsided. In my opinion, and it seems that of many others, he most certainly did get a chance to express his opinion. He may have been in a minority of one but it's not as if people were barking questions at him or anything. The Meeting was moderated, and most of us were genuinely interested in hearing his opinion. Time and again he was asked what he had against this group, and the questions were put fairly, politely, and respectfully. While everyone else disagreed with his 'blocking' of the antifascist event, it wasn't as if we all agreed about everything, there was still plenty of debate. To get up the next day and lie and moan like he has is inexcuseable.

YB&B

Put upon

15.10.2009 00:49

Lopsided said - He seems to have felt put-upon

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

The bloke DID get a chance to speak - he was one of the 2 people who spoke most. It's just that what he said was rubbish. Like saying he couldn't find any info on this group. Going on about that sticker. Then he tried saying it wasn't to do with the group it was because of the rules. He just talked bollocks frankly. After reading the shit he's come out with since I can't be bothered to go to the meeting on Thursday. In fact thats it for me.

Shutting down

Don't give up the fight...

15.10.2009 08:38

"I can't be bothered to go to the meeting on Thursday. In fact thats it for me."

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

The 635 group should make a statement rather than hiding behind the anonymity of the computer screen.

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

They can be emailed at:-

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

"The 635 group should make a statement rather than hiding behind the anonymity of the computer screen."

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

Troll Alert

15.10.2009 10:33

"If you're not a fascist or a cop trolling for information then you're doing a very good impression of one. "

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

I think whats happened here is that this guy has built a bit of a feifdom for himself (at the cp n elsewhere) and he's used to gettin his own way. Hes got a bit of bee in his bonnet about this group (proberbly been listening to silly rumoers - like the sort that are always going round in places like the cp) n he doesnt like coming unstuck - his pride is hurt. He got it wrong tho - way wrong n he should back down with some dignity n maybe say sorry for what he done

will

we are too nice sometimes

15.10.2009 11:16

I think sometimes as anarchists we can be too nice and open. In this situation we've basicaly welcomed in some old guy who nobody knew n he's caused a lot of damage. We should be open and welcoming of course but we have to protect ourselfs also. We have to get the balance right. In this case we got it wrong and it could have been a lot worse.

@narcho-girl

Destructive?

15.10.2009 11:27

"being led so completely and utterly down this destructive path"

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

It's funny isn't it. The 635 group, or more accuately one or two of their number, can annonymously spin all sorts of lies and misinformation about the common place with impunity but as soon as someone questions their leadership they are a cop or a fascist?

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

"Common Place users meet to support antifascism" (articles/233) has been hidden by the user "jimdog."

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

On the one hand we have a OpenPGP signed email from The Accused:

"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

Does anyone else find it confising ...

15.10.2009 15:50

That when the guy from the common place who started it all said he couldn't find out about the 635 group he was derrided...

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

"I would prefer that people do not continue speculation about the common place on this list"

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

Indymedia northern are pretending that they have enough 'evidence' to prove this article is inaccurate.

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

'That when the guy from the common place who started it all said he couldn't find out about the 635 group he was derrided...

'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

RE: Indymedia Northern - They very obviously ARE censoring their list.

Hinternet

Call yourselves "activists"

15.10.2009 16:17

Some of the comments on this thread are an absolute gift to the facists - it's despiccable that those willing to take them on should be abused like this.

Shame on you

Tonight's meeting

15.10.2009 16:46

After the other night and after reading through this thread I really can't be arsed to go to the meeting tonight (which we were told the other night was 'closed' in any case). I know that sounds bad but this kind of thing is so bloody draining. I'm cynical about it being sorted out. If it isn't there'll soon be problems when the same guy tries blocking another event. In my opinion he's going to have to go and good luck to those who do attend in finding the courage to do the right thing.

Good luck CP

to the poster...

16.10.2009 01:46

hi

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
mail 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

'there's no point in posting rebuttals to comments on indymedia UK because it's not taken seriously as a news source'

'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

Yes it is overwhelming when your post provokes such a reaction!

Thanks for reporting on that meeting you went to. Wish more people did the same.