Trouble on the terraces
Solidarity Collective | 30.03.2015 23:20 | Repression | London
Video from an impartial attendee 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RkC469x8Ns&feature=youtu.be
On Saturday 28th of March 2015 an altercation unfolded during a home match of Clapton FC in East London. Clapton FC fans are known for their antifascist politics. The altercation took place between two sets of Clapton fans: on the one side some of the founders of the 'Clapton Ultras' and originators of its antifascist stance and their families, other well known antifascist activists, members of the RMT and visiting Celtic FC fans who had travelled to London from Scotland; on the other side the main bulk of Clapton Ultras this season, who now include members of the ISN and RS21 splits from the SWP.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RkC469x8Ns&feature=youtu.be On Saturday 28th of March 2015 an altercation unfolded during a home match of Clapton FC in East London. Clapton FC fans are known for their antifascist politics. The altercation took place between two sets of Clapton fans: on the one side some of the founders of the 'Clapton Ultras' and originators of its antifascist stance and their families, other well known antifascist activists, members of the RMT and visiting Celtic FC fans who had travelled to London from Scotland; on the other side the main bulk of Clapton Ultras this season, who now include members of the ISN and RS21 splits from the SWP.
Sometime after 3pm on the 28th, reports started to come through on twitter of an incident. https://twitter.com/aonaichte/status/581836690270093312
From these initial reports circulating on social media, we were led to believe that RMT members, including Steve Hedley and visiting Celtic fans, took over the stand and began attacking people with beer cans and spitting on women who had asked them to leave. https://twitter.com/aonaichte/status/581836877168267264
Steve Hedley is seen as a controversial figure in some sections the activist and anarchist scene after an allegation of assault was made against him by Caroline Leneghan. It is accepted by both Steve and Caroline that an incident did happen in 2012, but the allegation that it was domestic violence only surfaced when Steve ended their relationship in 2013. Following the allegation a full investigation was carried out by the RMT at the request of Caroline and Steve was found to have no case to answer.
Full background to this can be found here. https://saferspaces.exposed
Despite the findings of both the RMT and the police, elements of the left and the activist scene have campaigned for his exclusion as a point of principle, almost uninterested in the details of the case, drawing a simple line: if you don't join in the exclusion and online 'calling out' of Hedley, you are an enabler domestic violence and against women.
Most serious groups have followed the lead of the RMT and made a principled stance that whatever your opinion, you must work with the findings of an investigation and avoid bringing personalities into serious class politics, especial when the RMT faces such hostile coverage in the corporate media. However individuals who are based in academia and the enormous online leftish-commentary scene have suddenly developed a huge interest in the case, using as a stick to beat those who continue to work with this senior trade unionist, as well as to defame Hedley.
Earlier this season Hedley had beer thrown over him in a pub by a Clapton Ultra after a match, then was accused of assaulting someone else
almost immediately online. All that was clearly witnessed was someone throwing beer at Hedley's group, and then being restrained from throwing more beer slightly later; it is hard to find the allegation of assault as it was made in a now private post, but the general idea that Hedley had 'assaulted someone' was taken up by various online leftists.
Video from an impartial attendee https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RkC469x8Ns&feature=youtu.be
First hand account from a Clapton fan
"I arrived during half time and walked around to the stand ("The Scaffold"). The first thing I noticed was the main bulk of the fans standing behind the goal, which was unusual. The fans in the scaffold included some regulars, some founders of the 'Ultras', and a visiting group of Celtic fans. Some people had RMT arm bands on because they had come from an RMT picket earlier that day. I said hello to a few people... chatted. It wasn’t clear at first what was going on or why the main bulk of the fans had moved behind the goal. I walked around to behind the goal and asked a few people what was going on. 'Some guy over there beat up his girlfriend and is an abuser so we moved over here' was the general consensus. I asked the fans on the scaffold what happened and they said they had greeted people as they arrived warmly but they had decided to leave the Scaffold and some had refused to acknowledge them at all, despite being long term fans.
I returned to the Scaffold when the match restarted. One of the male Clapton fans ran over from behind the goal to the Scaffold and tried to steal a Celtic antifascist banner. A scuffle broke out and the Clapton fan from the goal end ran back without the banner. At this point the women and children left the Scaffold and stood in the away fans stand in response to the banner incident. A few people from the Scaffold mediated with a few people from the goal end and it seemed to calm down. The goal end fans periodically would boo at the Scaffold fans. It became increasingly obvious that full time would present some issues. As far as the visiting Celtic supporters were concerned, they were in receipt of considerable hostility and were not going to leave before full time and give their attackers validation for their actions.
At full time the players walked to the fans at the goal end obviously confused about what was going on. Took their bows and left. Fans from behind the goal started to leave via the opposite side of the pitch so as to avoid the Scaffold. Some walked across the pitch. I realised that there may be some more aggravation so I also walked onto the pitch waiting for my friends to stop chatting and leave with me. There were quite a few people on the pitch not wanting to take any side and calm down any trouble. I was talking to someone and heard a commotion behind me. Turning around I saw a group of about 6 women who I didn't recognise as regulars screaming at the top of their voices and pushing against the stewards from the club who were trying to calm them down and keep them back as gently as they could. Behind the women a group of men formed some with their hoods up. The women were screaming continuously. One woman with dark curly hair was spitting on people in the Scaffold and chucking beer at them. The fans in the Scaffold didn’t retaliate but didn't leave. The women and men started pelting the scaffold with glass bottles and half cans of beer. Then suddenly a group of about 20 men rushed the Scaffold climbing the barriers. It was utter chaos - loads of people scrapping in close quarters. The fights spilled out on the pitch and people were chasing each other and fighting on the pitch. Everyone was still shouting and screaming. Others were in the middle trying to keep the groups apart. It was around that point the police turned up and we left"
Shortly after the match an activist in London who is not associated with Clapton FC was discussing the incident with one of the travelling Celtic fans. The Celtic fan stated that
"The bhoys are saying that trouble was caused by a female! Seemingly she started spitting and throwing her beer."
Another person who attended the match had this to say
"I attended the Clapton game with Celtic fans from Cowdenbeath and local Clapton fans on Saturday 28th April.Before the game I was shouted at, spat at and abused by the women shown in the video. After the game the same women accompanied by some men threw full beer cans at me and I was hit on the head and the shoulder.I was also spat upon and was hit over the head with a plastic bag containing beer cans.At no point did I retaliate as I knew it was their intention to provoke me. There was then an attempt by some male Clapton fans to storm the scaffold attacking the Celtic fans and the Celtic fans were forced to defend themselves whereupon the Clapton fans fled the scene."
Shortly after 4pm on the 28th Sarah Kwei @SarahKwei said the following on twitter:
"Faced down Steve Hedley and his body guards @ClaptonFC_Match. every1 has left the scaffold coz they WONT STAND WITH ABUSERS @ClaptonUltras" https://twitter.com/SarahKwei/status/581853148123406336
Sarah Kwei is a prominent member of E15 Mums, a campaign that was shot to the front pages of the mainstream media after challenging the London Borough of Newham's lack of commitment to social housing.
This isn't the first time that elements of E15 Mums have been involved in attacks on Steve Hedley. A statement was issued on the 6th of October 2014 https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=771996469510374&id=602860129757343 by someone within E15 without consulting the other members of the group asking Steve Hedley to stay away from future E15 events.
Jasmin and Sam of E15 released a counter statement http://focuse15.org/2014/10/15/statement-by-jasmin-and-sam-focus-e15-campaign/ on 15th October 2014 stating,"In particular we would like clarify that the previous statement did not speak on behalf of the whole campaign and that Focus E15 campaign is open to men and women and all support is welcome and appreciated." This sort of behaviour not only damaging campaigns such as E15 Mums, but the whole of activism. https://saferspaces.exposed/2014/10/13/part1/
We have had some statements from those people in Scotland who attended this match and others who were not connected to either group and it's clear that there has been a campaign of disinformation since the events of Saturday.
This morning video evidence emerged that was taken by an impartial observer who was in attendance and passed to our collective along with various witness statements.
It is clear from the video that this group was not attacked as they stated but were in fact having to be restrained, spitting on individuals at the match and throwing both bottles and cans of beer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RkC469x8Ns&feature=youtu.be
It is clear from the footage available that the aggression was coming from one side. We yet again find it appalling that those who claim on social media to support victims of violence are in fact perpetrating violence themselves.
https://twitter.com/aonaichte/status/581836690270093312 From these initial reports circulating on social media, we were led to believe that RMT members, including Steve Hedley and visiting Celtic fans, took over the stand and began attacking people with beer cans and spitting on women who had asked them to leave.
https://twitter.com/aonaichte/status/581836877168267264 Steve Hedley is seen as a controversial figure in some sections the activist and anarchist scene after an allegation of assault was made against him by Caroline Leneghan. It is accepted by both Steve and Caroline that an incident did happen in 2012, but the allegation that it was domestic violence only surfaced when Steve ended their relationship in 2013. Following the allegation a full investigation was carried out by the RMT at the request of Caroline and Steve was found to have no case to answer.
Full background to this can be found here.
https://saferspaces.exposed Despite the findings of both the RMT and the police, elements of the left and the activist scene have campaigned for his exclusion as a point of principle, almost uninterested in the details of the case, drawing a simple line: if you don't join in the exclusion and online 'calling out' of Hedley, you are an enabler domestic violence and against women.
Most serious groups have followed the lead of the RMT and made a principled stance that whatever your opinion, you must work with the findings of an investigation and avoid bringing personalities into serious class politics, especial when the RMT faces such hostile coverage in the corporate media. However individuals who are based in academia and the enormous online leftish-commentary scene have suddenly developed a huge interest in the case, using as a stick to beat those who continue to work with this senior trade unionist, as well as to defame Hedley.
Earlier this season Hedley had beer thrown over him in a pub by a Clapton Ultra after a match, then was accused of assaulting someone else
almost immediately online. All that was clearly witnessed was someone throwing beer at Hedley's group, and then being restrained from throwing more beer slightly later; it is hard to find the allegation of assault as it was made in a now private post, but the general idea that Hedley had 'assaulted someone' was taken up by various online leftists.
Video from an impartial attendee
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RkC469x8Ns&feature=youtu.be First hand account from a Clapton fan
"I arrived during half time and walked around to the stand ("The Scaffold"). The first thing I noticed was the main bulk of the fans standing behind the goal, which was unusual. The fans in the scaffold included some regulars, some founders of the 'Ultras', and a visiting group of Celtic fans. Some people had RMT arm bands on because they had come from an RMT picket earlier that day. I said hello to a few people... chatted. It wasn’t clear at first what was going on or why the main bulk of the fans had moved behind the goal. I walked around to behind the goal and asked a few people what was going on. 'Some guy over there beat up his girlfriend and is an abuser so we moved over here' was the general consensus. I asked the fans on the scaffold what happened and they said they had greeted people as they arrived warmly but they had decided to leave the Scaffold and some had refused to acknowledge them at all, despite being long term fans.
I returned to the Scaffold when the match restarted. One of the male Clapton fans ran over from behind the goal to the Scaffold and tried to steal a Celtic antifascist banner. A scuffle broke out and the Clapton fan from the goal end ran back without the banner. At this point the women and children left the Scaffold and stood in the away fans stand in response to the banner incident. A few people from the Scaffold mediated with a few people from the goal end and it seemed to calm down. The goal end fans periodically would boo at the Scaffold fans. It became increasingly obvious that full time would present some issues. As far as the visiting Celtic supporters were concerned, they were in receipt of considerable hostility and were not going to leave before full time and give their attackers validation for their actions.
At full time the players walked to the fans at the goal end obviously confused about what was going on. Took their bows and left. Fans from behind the goal started to leave via the opposite side of the pitch so as to avoid the Scaffold. Some walked across the pitch. I realised that there may be some more aggravation so I also walked onto the pitch waiting for my friends to stop chatting and leave with me. There were quite a few people on the pitch not wanting to take any side and calm down any trouble. I was talking to someone and heard a commotion behind me. Turning around I saw a group of about 6 women who I didn't recognise as regulars screaming at the top of their voices and pushing against the stewards from the club who were trying to calm them down and keep them back as gently as they could. Behind the women a group of men formed some with their hoods up. The women were screaming continuously. One woman with dark curly hair was spitting on people in the Scaffold and chucking beer at them. The fans in the Scaffold didn’t retaliate but didn't leave. The women and men started pelting the scaffold with glass bottles and half cans of beer. Then suddenly a group of about 20 men rushed the Scaffold climbing the barriers. It was utter chaos - loads of people scrapping in close quarters. The fights spilled out on the pitch and people were chasing each other and fighting on the pitch. Everyone was still shouting and screaming. Others were in the middle trying to keep the groups apart. It was around that point the police turned up and we left"
Shortly after the match an activist in London who is not associated with Clapton FC was discussing the incident with one of the travelling Celtic fans. The Celtic fan stated that
"The bhoys are saying that trouble was caused by a female! Seemingly she started spitting and throwing her beer."
Another person who attended the match had this to say
"I attended the Clapton game with Celtic fans from Cowdenbeath and local Clapton fans on Saturday 28th April.Before the game I was shouted at, spat at and abused by the women shown in the video. After the game the same women accompanied by some men threw full beer cans at me and I was hit on the head and the shoulder.I was also spat upon and was hit over the head with a plastic bag containing beer cans.At no point did I retaliate as I knew it was their intention to provoke me. There was then an attempt by some male Clapton fans to storm the scaffold attacking the Celtic fans and the Celtic fans were forced to defend themselves whereupon the Clapton fans fled the scene."
Shortly after 4pm on the 28th Sarah Kwei @SarahKwei said the following on twitter:
"Faced down Steve Hedley and his body guards @ClaptonFC_Match. every1 has left the scaffold coz they WONT STAND WITH ABUSERS @ClaptonUltras"
https://twitter.com/SarahKwei/status/581853148123406336 Sarah Kwei is a prominent member of E15 Mums, a campaign that was shot to the front pages of the mainstream media after challenging the London Borough of Newham's lack of commitment to social housing.
This isn't the first time that elements of E15 Mums have been involved in attacks on Steve Hedley. A statement was issued on the 6th of October 2014
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=771996469510374&id=602860129757343 by someone within E15 without consulting the other members of the group asking Steve Hedley to stay away from future E15 events. Jasmin and Sam of E15 released a counter statement
http://focuse15.org/2014/10/15/statement-by-jasmin-and-sam-focus-e15-campaign/ on 15th October 2014 stating,"In particular we would like clarify that the previous statement did not speak on behalf of the whole campaign and that Focus E15 campaign is open to men and women and all support is welcome and appreciated." This sort of behaviour not only damaging campaigns such as E15 Mums, but the whole of activism. https://saferspaces.exposed/2014/10/13/part1/ We have had some statements from those people in Scotland who attended this match and others who were not connected to either group and it's clear that there has been a campaign of disinformation since the events of Saturday.
This morning video evidence emerged that was taken by an impartial observer who was in attendance and passed to our collective along with various witness statements.
It is clear from the video that this group was not attacked as they stated but were in fact having to be restrained, spitting on individuals at the match and throwing both bottles and cans of beer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RkC469x8Ns&feature=youtu.be It is clear from the footage available that the aggression was coming from one side. We yet again find it appalling that those who claim on social media to support victims of violence are in fact perpetrating violence themselves.
Solidarity Collective
Homepage:
https://saferspaces.exposed
Comments
Hide the following 108 comments
A personal view
31.03.2015 06:38
John Page
e-mail:
John.page45@btinternet.com
what a load of bollocks
31.03.2015 09:24
Bollocks - none of the founders of clapton ultras or their antifascist stance were in that group
"I asked the fans on the scaffold what happened and they said they had greeted people as they arrived warmly but they had decided to leave the Scaffold and some had refused to acknowledge them at all, despite being long term fans."
Bollocks - by greeting warmly do u mean sending mob handed a load of lads to take over the scaffold and protect a man who has been asked not to attend games - because he makes people feel unsafe?
This article has nothing impartial in it - just written by someone who's dedicated themself to sticking up for steve and other people accused of abuse.
And what's more - how is it that people in that group can have the ability to understand that black people and muslims are stitched up by the police, and have their cases not taken seriously, be victims of state racism and prejudice causing the justice system to look fairly on them. But can not extend that to women, not being taken seriously by a sexist police force and justice system.
bollocks
So do you believe in mob rule?
31.03.2015 10:08
I don't know the truth or otherwise of the allegations against Steve, and nor do you. I do know that they have been investigated both by the police and by the RMT and both found no grounds for taking them forward.
What is shocking is how so called 'left' organisations, some of whom have a dire record on supporting women's issues, have used these allegations to attack a political opponent.
No doubt many decent people have been taken in by the assertion as fact that Steve is guilty. If you are one of them, then I suggest that you reflect on where we would be if people could be driven out of the movement on the basis of one uncorroborated and unproven allegation.
If you are one of the people using this for your own political objectives, then it won't surprise me if in 30 years time we will find out you weren't really on our side in the first place.
John Page
John Page
e-mail:
john.page45@btinternet.com
Video
31.03.2015 10:27
I think the video is pretty impartial, strange how you didn't mention that?
Crow
Just to clarify
31.03.2015 10:28
Scaffold Gal
wait wait wait
31.03.2015 11:09
Not the people that
1) decided to leave their own stand and mob up elsewhere, forcing everyone to pick a side
2) started trouble
So if a person who has been accused of something then found not guilty goes somewhere and is attacked, it is their fault for being attacked.
This is victim blaming. Which, considering how the attackers justify their actions, is bitterly ironic.
I think a lot of people are taking the 'clapton side' just on the basis of it being their club. Please people see past this, and understand what happened was NOT OKAY.
scaffoldette
Just to clarify
31.03.2015 11:18
Scaffold Gal
"Known abusers"?
31.03.2015 11:45
Or is 'Scaffold Gal' yet another self appointed judge & jury who chooses to believe one of two totally conflicting accounts of what happened?
Innocent until....
Just to clarify
31.03.2015 11:57
Scaffold Gal
How predictable - a speech instead of an answer.
31.03.2015 12:02
Otherwise we'd all be fucked.
Innocent until....
In reply to Scaffold Gal
31.03.2015 12:08
In your first post you say: 'I missed the beginning of the game', but on your second you assert as fact: that he 'decided to [go] straight to where we all stand, it was provocation and intimidation in the extreme'. Given you were not even there at the time, how do you know that his attending the match was a 'provocation'.
Has it never occurred to you that the allegation against Steve might not be true? Or do you simply not care?
If you were serious about addressing sexism, then you would not refer to someone as 'a known abuser', when you know no such thing. Indeed your aggressive behaviour (as represented in the video) is completely at odds with your pretence of challenging sexism.
John Page
e-mail:
john.page45@btinternet.com
Saturday's barney
31.03.2015 14:12
Some Celtic anti-fascists were indeed along. They accompanied Steve Hedley. My understanding was that they had spent the morning on a cultural tour of several London leftist landmarks, including a visit to Cable Street and its famous anti-fascist mural.
They certainly were with a number of Clapton regulars. And these absolutely were long-time fans. I know them and I know they have been attending most games for 2+ years or more.
There were women in this group also. I met them after the game and they were appalled by the verbal and physical aggression against Steve Hedley and the Celtic anti-fascists, who at no stage initiated any bother. Quite the opposite from what I saw.
If people don't want to stand with Steve Hedley then fine. That's their choice. But they weren't chased from the scaffold by anyone. And whatever opinion they have of their own righteousness they have no legal or moral claim to who can or cannot pay a fiver to watch football at Clapton FC. They don't own the club. They don't own the Scaffold.
After this video evidence they might also want to think about issuing an apology to Vince McBean for their recent childish insults toward him. Because as club owner he is entirely within his rights to decide who is and who isn't allowed through those gates.
Comrade Delta
Both sides were at fault
31.03.2015 15:12
Could Scaffold Girl and her mates please explain why they are on a mission to attract the cops to Clapton? Have they ever attended football matches elsewhere? Their very naive behaviour suggests otherwise.
Meanwhile Hedley's Celtic mates did nothing to rise above the situation or diffuse it. Worse still they started chanting IRA songs (FFS!). I didn't see any fascists or loyalists in the ground. So what was that all about? Does Clapton really need divisive sectarian politics being imported into its ground? And all the fuckwitted nationalists & undercover cops that come with it?
The Pie & Mash squad must be laughing their heads off...
Claptonite
Some facts
31.03.2015 15:42
Caroline was not a member of the RMT at the time of the alleged INCIDENT, it not disputed by either Caroline or Steve that an incident did take place I repeat, at the time of the incident Caroline was not a member of the RMT.
She became a member after the incident and campaigned non stop to have Steve Hedley elected AGS AFTER THE ALLEGED INCIDENT.
In January 2013 Steve broke up with Caroline because of her behaviour, confirmed by the 100s of text messages she sent over a few days peroid Christmas 2012 to January 2013. Only after Caroline confirmed Steve was seeing someone else after she illegally accessed his facebook account did she email Bob Crow RIP and raise the complaint. I believe it was something like 20 minutes from she became aware until she emailed Bob Crow.
After her insistance of an investigation the RMT undertook a lenghy investigation. I have seen it in full. He was cleared, she appealed it he was cleared. She got a branch outside of London to bring it to the AGM. This was accepted, the evidence was collated for the AGM, and she withdrew her complaint.
The police investigated it, he was cleared. Andy Littlechild Rep for Caroline and member of the Solidarity Federation, distorted a letter sent by the police to Caroline try and make Steve look guilty, for a time it worked. However that too was exposed.
Anon
What about the rest?
31.03.2015 20:43
Comparing a young woman to a bulldog chewing a wasp and comparing another woman to a dog. To name just two examples that were openly put on his facebook wall.
Those comments alone make him unfit for his position in the RMT and make him unwelcome where he goes.
If someone had made openly racist comments on their facebook wall no-one would say they should keep their position in the RMT. No difference with sexism.
Step
Understanding the problem (within our groups)
31.03.2015 20:50
The problem is, we may not be in agreement about WHAT constitutes "charges to answer", especially when it is allegations of abuse or sexual impropriety. To make that clear, I will use as an example what is current among our movements HERE.
"Positive consent" ---- to put in easy to understand terms, "the absence of no does not mean yes; yes means yes." THAT is the standard many of our groups are now using. That may not be how the law interprets it, and it also may not be how some of the people in our groups interpret it, and of course, since I am here and not where you are, might be a strange concept to you. Or at least to some of you.
That is why "no charges to answer in law" or "no charges to answer according to some organizational tribunal" MIGHT not satisfy some people. They are saying something very different, that they don't accept the STANDARD being used to interpret the meaning of the facts (the facts might not be in dispute). You should at least make the effort to find out if this is the case instead of saying "the law found no charge to answer" or "the tribunal found no charge to answer", why are you saying "guilty"?
It wasn't all that long ago even here that "she/he didn't fight back" was a valid defense. It wasn't all that long ago even here that "too drunk to say no" was a valid defense. It wasn't all that long ago even here that "she didn't leave the job" was a valid defense. Well standards have changed here, and maybe there is movement where you are to move to higher standards. People don't have to agree with a call to change standards but they should LISTEN to at least find out if that's what is going on.
MDN
Justice
31.03.2015 22:24
Anon
So, what are people meant to do?
31.03.2015 23:48
Further, the claims of the OP do not follow the "innocent until proven guilty" line. For example, they state:
"Earlier this season Hedley had beer thrown over him in a pub by a Clapton Ultra after a match, then was accused of assaulting someone else almost immediately online."
"One of the male Clapton fans ran over from behind the goal to the Scaffold and tried to steal a Celtic antifascist banner"
"The bhoys are saying that trouble was caused by a female! Seemingly she started spitting and throwing her beer"
None of these statements have been proven! Why don't you wait for an official inquiry, before posting them here? Shouldn't you let the police investigate first? Isn't anything else essentially an encouragement of mob justice?
In a court of law anyone accused of these things would be allowed to prevent a defence. Surely, if you are to follow your arguments and methods to their logical conclusion, Indy UK should now ask the people you have accused of violence to present their own account of events, and display it side by side with yours?
Anon
Smash the copper in your head
01.04.2015 03:54
Let's get things clear. Scaffold Gal claims he has a source who told him a couple of days prior that steve hedley was coming to Clapton for revenge. This is untrue because our group didn't know steve was coming until the night before the game. The last time steve came to a Clapton game with me nobody said a word at the game, when we want to the pub afterwards we were first told that there were EDL in the pub and asked to 'sort them out' by one of the girls. Myself and steve approached the individuals in question before realising they were in fact PCS reps (2 of them) enjoying a quiet drink. No doubt they were upset at the mistaken identity. Afterwards a girl came from the back of the pub and told steve he was a scumbag and not welcome before storming off. I went out to the back to try to talk to people and was confronted by a couple of angry people shouting about steve being an abuser. I tried to explain that Rmt and the police had investigated but this fell on deaf ears. Some of the Clapton crowd who I had previously been enjoying a drink with suddenly refused to talk to me. Even Gal said he was unsure if he should be talking to me now. During this time two other girls went up to the bar where steve and our other Rmt comrade were standing and threw their drinks at steve and our mate got caught in the crossfire. One of the Clapton lads went to go steaming up and I earned him not to because that's how confrontations start and people get hurt or nicked. I thought he took my advice but a few minutes later he came up with a beer in hand and steve believing another beer was going to be thrown at him grabbed it out of his hand a pushed him away. Him and his mate were thrown out of the pub and were outside giving us the finger. I went back out to the back to try to calm things down at which point there was an altercation between our friend and one of the Clapton lads who'd been chucked out. After this episode someone from Clapton wrote to the london black revs about me (I had spoken on their Ferguson demo outside the U.S. Embassy) accusing me of being an aggressive misogynist among other things. I continued to go to Clapton games and spoke to Gal and others about this who all agreed it was out of order because I had been nothing but reasonable. The LBR then became hostile to me despite me working with prominent LBR activists on antifa work for a while. On the day in question we had organised (including some long standing Clapton fans) to meet the Cowdenbeath flying column and had organised a tour of the marx memorial library to see international brigades banners and a visit to cable street and meet a veteran from that famous victory. This is what grabbed steves interest being ex red action and part of the underground Celtic supporters club not Clapton, which he was undecided if he would attend or not. We had originally planned to go back to the usual pub with the rest of the Clapton crowd but once we knew steve was coming we decided to go to s different pub in Stratford after the game to avoid another episode like the previous one. It was not an ambush or planned revenge. When we got to Clapton there was a fair crowd and we got onto the scaffold and said hello to a few faces. A few minutes into the game we were set on by a couple of Clapton girls and boys who were calling us scum and screaming at steve telling us we had to go. The rest is history. The facts are that steve and his ex partner had bad break up an allegation was made and my union did a 3 stage investigation as well as a police investigation with no case to answer. I'm also a personal friend of Andy Littlechild, Caroline's rep, who did what any decent Rmt rep would do and represented his member to the best of his abilities. I won't have anyone slagging off Andy or Caroline, but neither can I stand by and allow a kangaroo court on a football terrace initiate an attack on a member of my union who has faced investigation. Steve Hedley isn't a known abuser, he is a person who had allegations made against him that were in the end unsubstantiated. Whatever your personal feelings regarding Caroline's account or the limitations of the criminal justice system you don't have the right to initiate verbal or physical assault on someone because of it. Clapton never approached steve or me to sort this out in a calm way instead people just went straight to war. Similarly people from Clapton just sent anonymous and slanderous messages about me to LBR without any dialog with me. At Southend after certain things happened someone also wrote anonymously to the Southend echo using the pseudonym 'claptonite' to smear Clapton fans who did the heavy lifting of being ultra left hooligans intent on violence. It's a shame those people who were throwing bottles and spitting at us weren't as quick when the fash turned up. Either way Clapton needs to confront this type of totalitarian which hunting and get back to reality.
Eddie1916
reply to both sides at fault
01.04.2015 04:27
Go back to sleep mate
Eddie 1916
Clapton Kangeroo Court
01.04.2015 04:31
Is he next in line for the Kangeroo court?
Will you demand he leaves your safe space by throwing cans at him and spitting on him?
#kafka
Eddie1916
And the rest?
01.04.2015 08:08
Step
Spitting hairs
01.04.2015 09:09
TC
e-mail:
tallchris99@hotmail.com
reply to "Step's" comment - "And the Rest"
01.04.2015 09:33
Someone above complained about IRA songs being sung on Saturday. The Irish Republican Army liberated Ireland from British colonialism in 1921. Many IRA members fought as volunteers with the International Brigades in 1930s Spain. Nothing wrong with celebrating this anti-fascist history in song.
Besides, PLO chants are commonly heard at Clapton. The PLO is a mono-ethnic nationalist movement. I support the Palestinian cause by the way, but where is the safe space for Jewish football fans who may feel threatened and excluded by pro-PLO songs and banners at our games?
Comrade Echo
working class democracy?
01.04.2015 12:17
There you go, bringing class into it again!
Seriously though, electing people to "represent" us is never the same as real democracy. Workers have a proud history of direct democracy which has been ignored and stifled by left-wing bureaucrats. I can't comment on this case because I'm not involved, but remember this: power will always get abused. So long as we let "representatives" lead our unions, elected or not, people will use these positions of power to get away with abuse.
Also, you should probably stick to the issue at hand - rather than distracting from it like a politician and accusing other people of being "cultish".
Angry peasant
response to Angry Pedant
01.04.2015 13:39
Here's how working-class democracy works at RMT:
Any decision of the (elected) General Secretary and/or the Union's (elected and temporary) rank-and-file executive (which itself instructs the General Secretary) can be challenged and overturned by any one of the union's 200+ Branches. These Branches are entirely made up of rank-and-file workers and meet every few weeks.
If a Branch is unsuccessful it can take its challenge to the union's AGM, whose delegates are composed entirely of elected rank-and-file transport workers. Collectively, they are the highest decision-making body in the Union. Ordinary workers. What they say goes. It happens, and the leadership respect and abide by the AGM's decision whenever it gets overturned. Without fuss.
Disciplined working-class democracy versus hysterical vigilantism.
Comrade Echo
Echo comrade echo
01.04.2015 13:58
Rmt is not a bureaucratic machine so despised by infantile leftists divorced from the mass of the organised working class,
It is a rank and file led union where rank and file workers make all decisions.
Our executive is made up of railway and shipping workers from booking office clerks to track workers who serve a term and must go back to their jobs afterwards.
In the case of Calonines complaint a decision was made which she appealed and had it referee to the executive which also went against her claim so she appealed and it was placed before our AGM, the supreme governing body of our union made up entirely of workers from across the country, doe getters from every region, who also democratically refuted her allegation.
Who has done the better job of trying to get to the bottom of this, us or the lynch mob lunatics spitting and throwing beer at us in pubs and on the scaffold?
Time to take a long hard look at the behaviour of that small clique you're all so afraid to challenge.
Eddie1916
"The burden of proof is on he who declares, not on he who denies"
01.04.2015 14:02
Donny Mark
Response to "comrade" echo
01.04.2015 14:37
Remember that this statement is written by an RMT rep:
Angry pedant
resonse to angry pendant
01.04.2015 15:00
Andy Littkechild is a personal fiend and a comrade of mine. He did he job as any RMT rep would and represented his member to the very best of his ability.
The RMT AGM is a mass delegate meeting with elected workers attending from every region and area of the transport and shipping industry.
The meeting had all documents from the investigation and considered all the facts.
The point is, even if after the process you still believe Caroline's account over Steves, we went through an extensive 3 stage investigation process that involved all levels of our unions democratic structure.
This is a far cry from the actions of a small group of politically motivated activists who have been attacking steve all over the left for the last two years,
The main ringleader who started the trouble at the start and then after the match started, indeed she spat in my face tryin to spit in Steves, is the same activist that out out a statement from the E15 campaign saying steve was no longer welcome there without the concent of the rest of the E15 group who issued a statement afterwards rescinding the ban.
Steve had been supporting the campaign from its inception.
It's the same group who have imported this campaign against steve to Clapton, and who I also suspect of making accusations and anonymous complaints from. Clapton to LBR about me,
None of it has been transparent, often anonymous, no attempt at any process, democratic or otherwise, no doubt most of the fans had no idea about any of this beyond 'he beat his wife up or something'
Yet despite 2 investigations this group has initiated physical attacks on steve twice in claptons name,
Do all Clapton ultras agree with this?
Nobody ever asked me or my mates some of whom had been going to Clapton for 2 years,
This is lynch mob, Kangeroo court, witch hunting, it is bullying plain and simple and has nothing to do with standing up for victims of domestic abuse.
Also many say that steve is the aggressor for turning up, so if he turns up anywhere he is a trouble maker because 'we have to attack him because we don't feel safe'
Is anyone going to question the actions and motivations of those who've been attacking steve at Clapton?
I'd there any process, democracy or transparency at Clapton?
You need to have a look at yourselves.
Eddie1916
Reality check
01.04.2015 15:36
The investigation found no case to answer.
Caroline appealed and her case was referred to the council of executives (a rank and file body made up of transport workers who serve a term and go back to checking tickets or driving trains or whatever) who upheld the original decision of no case to answer.
This was then referred to our AGM which is a mass delegate meeting with ordinary workers from every region of Britain and is the supreme governing body of our union representing the collective will of the entire membership.
Again the decision of no case to answer was upheld.
How does this compare to the totalitarian approach by a small group of politically motivated activists who have been attacking steve outside of Clapton before he ever attended a game?
The ringleader of the anti hedley brigade is also an e15 activist who put a statement out on behalf of the e15 campaign denouncing steve as a 'known abuser' and banning him from e15 without any process or opportunity to respond and without the consent of the rest of the e15 group, in fact e15 put out a statement shortly afterwards explaining this was a rogue action and rescinding the ban (see original post)
What process did they go through before attacking steve physically in the pub after the first game or thieving bottles and spitting on him at the last game in claptons name?
Did they seek the consent of Clapton fans before issuing ultimatums and assaulting people?
Gal told me it wasn't even discussed when unknown individuals wrote anonymous messages about me to LBR in claptons name denouncing me as a violent misogynist.
Andy Littlechild Caroline's rep is a friend of mine who represented Caroline to the best of his capabilities as any RMT rep would,
Despite our differences of opinion on the case we remain steadfast comrades and friends.
Is anyone brave enough to challenge the behaviour of that small group of politically motivated activists with a history of attacking steve who brought their vendetta to Clapton and did it all in the name of the ultras?
Will they accept a difference of opinion in a comradely fashion or did they submit to any kind of democratic process within Clapton before launching their attacks?
Most Clapton fans have no idea what has been done in their name.
This Kangaroo court lynch mob has to be challenged.
Eddie1916
But what are people who've been abused meant to do?
01.04.2015 18:36
Find a Shelter or go to friends family .
Leave the abuser as soon as is practicable - not always easy.
Zo
What about the rest?
02.04.2015 08:07
Some of the evidence is here:
He also referred to a woman as a rottweiller on his wall and commented on her partner being her "owner".
This is outright disgusting sexism, and no better than making racist comments. If an RMT leader had so openly and flippantly made racist comments I hope to think they would be considered not fit for the job, and also that people would think twice about giving them solidarity. Same with Hedley's comments about women.
Step
in reply to 'step' and Gal.
02.04.2015 08:39
here we are looking at a physical attack on lots of people who are not steve hedley, then dishonst claims online by the attackers trying to frame him up for THEIR attack on him.
I completely object to derogatory comments made in the public arena in that way, but like I say, to suggest that they make all the difference for the women and men who suffered saturdays attack and continue to suffer defamation online, is nonsense. Do you really think we are going to say 'he called someone a dog, well i guess it was okay to be spat on, have bottles thrown at us, then be assaulted by a mob and then be called 'abusers' online'?
In reply to Gal - if you don't have any faith in Trade Unions, even ones as far left and democratic as the RMT, fairy nuff. Better hope you never need one, or heaven forbid, get accused of something on the internet.
scaffoldette
What about the rest?
02.04.2015 09:29
You have no idea what I've "called him out on" before, but he has been called out on it and nothing has happened. There should be an disciplinary investigation by the RMT if someone makes racist or sexist comments. He should also explain himself, he has done nothing of the sort.
I've not said anything about the attacks on Saturday, but I am making the point that Hedley is clearly a misogynist and isn't fit to be in his position in the RMT because of that.
Step
Step off that high horse:
02.04.2015 09:55
Much of that thread is missing, presumably because it doesn't do any favours for Pippa Georgeson - who apparently thinks all women are cunts.
"Pippa Georgeson On the 'cunt' issue, should Dan also lecture black people who use the n word? Or Jewish people who call themselves 'yids'?
25 November 2012 at 00:20 via mobile · Like"
Same old tactic it seems - woman enters the fray offering abuse and/or violence and then claims to be the victim.
Happened on that thread, and happened at the Clapton game.
Aunt C
What about the rest?
02.04.2015 10:42
No matter what the attitude of other people, Hedley is not entitled to use misogynistic comments. Just as it wouldn't be ok to respond with racist comments, even if someone else was being aggro.
His comments on his FB wall were also comparing a woman to a rottweiler and said that her partner was her owner. This was without any previous exchange.
Sexist and racist comments make someone unfit to be a union official. The RMT should carry out an investigation and he should be removed from the post.
Step
Definition of Misogynist
02.04.2015 13:51
misogynist |məˈsäjənist|
noun
a man who hates women.
adjective
reflecting or inspired by a hatred of women : a misogynist attitude.
DERIVATIVES
misogynistic |məˌsäjəˈnistik| adjective
If I make the statement
Margret Thatcher was a dog - I really hated that woman.
Am I a misogynist? (assuming I'm male) - er no I don't think so.
Misogynist is being misused here. Calling someone a dog is not "sexist" either - Men can be called dogs too. So these words are being used rheorically - as triggers. Like "anti-semitic" is used to denounce critics of Isreal. It's basically dishonest.
Zo
I am a complete newcomer to this situation
02.04.2015 14:22
I recently read this article and all the comments. Before that I had not heard about this situation at all. I am not a 'regular'. But I did view the conversation between Steve and Pippa.
Steve obviously has a problem with women - just judging by his comments. Insulting, patronizing, aggressive and irrational.
He came across as a narrow minded bigoted 'get-me-tea-on-the-table-woman' kind of person who is more than capable of abuse. That's just from seeing his posts.
Obviously I could be wrong, but that's my impression.
anon
What about the rest?
02.04.2015 14:35
Hedley has openly made sexist comments, insulting a young woman's looks (a bulldog chewing a wasp), called another woman a rottweiler and referred to her partner as her "owner". Anyone with half a brain would know that this is sexist, and the old chestnut that you insult men as well really doesn't cut it. Just like racists who make comments, and they say, well I insult all races.
He is clearly a very sexist man. No one would come out with such comments if they weren't, just as someone who wasn't racist wouldn't come out with brazen racist comments. It doesn't matter if you are provoked, or insulted, that is no excuse for sexist or racist remarks.
Being an open sexist or racist means you have no place having a trade union position, even more so in a leadership of a union. The RMT should launch an investigation and he should be removed from his post. Otherwise the message is that leading trade unionists can make sexist or racist remarks.
Ah the subject of Israel has come up. Personally I think it is an apartheid state. But given that style are you Hedley by any chance?
Step
Insulting
02.04.2015 14:52
Thatcher was a dog. Am I being sexist or insulting?
As for the "bulldog chewing a bee" - it just means ugly - it can apply to either sex.
You're using trigger words, It's what PR spin doctors do. It's dishonest.
Zo
Step
02.04.2015 14:52
No. I am not Hedley. Re-read my post Step. I am not a regular and I didn't know about this situation until about half an hour ago.
And I am agreeing with you, actually. Learn to recognize when someone is on your side.
anon
What about the rest?
02.04.2015 15:04
Zo calling a woman a dog is sexist, yes. Telling a woman they look like a bull dog chewing a wasp, and insulting their looks is also sexist. Telling a woman they are a rottweiller and their partner is their owner is also sexist. You sound like someone who makes racist comments and then tries to justify it. You can keep saying it's not sexist all you like, doesn't make it any less so.
It's not dishonest to call out sexism. If you can't see that these things are sexist, then you are ignorant, just like racists who justify their behaviour.
Union leaders need to have an insight in to sexism, racism and homophobia and other oppressions. If they can't see things are sexist or racist that are, then they have no place in their position. The RMT should hold an investigation.
Step
What about the rest?
02.04.2015 15:16
Zo, yes calling women dogs is sexist.
Yes calling a woman a bulldog chewing a wasp is sexist.
Yes calling a woman a rottweiller and saying her partner her owner is sexist.
Just because that woman is Thatcher doesn't make it not sexist. Just like using racist comments about Obama wouldn't make it less racist.
If you can't see that it's sexist I can't really take this any further. But anyone with any insight would know it was. The RMT should have an investigation, Hedley is not fit for office coming out with stuff like this.
It's laughable the way the person doing the saferspacers website has tried to use words that are used to talk about oppression as a smoke screen for the bigotry.
Step
Some truth
02.04.2015 15:45
Bit like our friend on twitter who claimed that the RMT had not said Steve had no case to answer, this information has been available online since Oct last year.
anonymous
What words mean no longer matters
02.04.2015 16:21
semantics |səˈmantiks|
plural noun [usu. treated as sing. ]
the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.
You know what words actually mean - and the logical aspects of meaning - i.e. not what you think they mean - Otherwise there'd be no meaning in this conversation - and it'd be pointless except for of course - Your political agenda, which has something to do with getting some RMT bloke out of his Union. Your using words rhetorically as triggers in a political propaganda campaign. Well if your not that's what it looks like from semantically analysing your posts.
sexism |ˈsekˌsizəm|
noun
prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
So saying one person is ugly is not saying all people are ugly - so "prejudice" there
Saying a person is ugly - again not stereotyping
Saying a person is ugly- is not descriminatiing in fact its the opposite
Either sex can be called ugly - so no nothing seems to check out with the text supplied and the definition given - So therefore insult is the right definition.
insult
verb |inˈsəlt| [ trans. ]
speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse
But Thatcher was a dog - so I'm a sexist, but I know I'm not a sexist and my peers would certainly tell me if I was - they say they're feminists and agree with me that - Thatcher was a dog - further more she was a whore of the corporatocray. So was Blair and so is Cameron and the Queen and Uncle Sir John Sawers and all.
My Gran used "face like a bag of whelks" quite indiscriminately. Was she being sexist?
See not giving a shit for semantics leads you into all kinds of contradictory and useless shit.
Except of course if your motivation is to get someone in a Union discredited. Now would Boris thank you for doing that? I dunno, but that violent aggressive abuse perpetrated by those chucking cans and bottles at Clapton needs to be sorted out. If they were at Upton Park they wouldn't be let back into the ground.
Zo
Thatcher was a dog
02.04.2015 19:15
Zo
What about the rest?
02.04.2015 21:32
It's laughable Zo saying that because you can also call a man a dog, or say his partner is his owner, or say that a man is a bulldog chewing a wasp that this somehow makes it less sexist. It would be like Jeremy Clarkson claiming that when he called someone a stupid Irish cunt it wasn't racist because he also says the same thing about English people. It ingores all power relations involved in oppression
The round about justifications are also pathetic. Yes you calling women whores, dogs etc, no nothing sexist about that.......do me a favour. You haven't got a didgeridoo.
Step
And just keep repeating it
02.04.2015 22:21
semantics |səˈmantiks|
plural noun [usu. treated as sing. ]
the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.
You know what words actually mean - and the logical aspects of meaning - i.e. not what you think they mean - Otherwise there'd be no meaning in this conversation - and it'd be pointless except for of course - Your political agenda, which has something to do with getting some RMT bloke out of his Union. Your using words rhetorically as triggers in a political propaganda campaign. Well if your not that's what it looks like from semantically analysing your posts.
sexism |ˈsekˌsizəm|
noun
prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
So saying one person is ugly is not saying all people are ugly - so "prejudice" there
Saying a person is ugly - again not stereotyping
Saying a person is ugly- is not descriminatiing in fact its the opposite
Either sex can be called ugly - so no nothing seems to check out with the text supplied and the definition given - So therefore insult is the right definition.
insult
verb |inˈsəlt| [ trans. ]
speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse
But Thatcher was a dog - so I'm a sexist, but I know I'm not a sexist and my peers would certainly tell me if I was - they say they're feminists and agree with me that - Thatcher was a dog - further more she was a whore of the corporatocray. So was Blair and so is Cameron and the Queen and Uncle Sir John Sawers and all.
My Gran used "face like a bag of whelks" quite indiscriminately. Was she being sexist?
See not giving a shit for semantics leads you into all kinds of contradictory and useless shit.
Except of course if your motivation is to get someone in a Union discredited. Now would Boris thank you for doing that? I dunno, but that violent aggressive abuse perpetrated by those chucking cans and bottles at Clapton needs to be sorted out. If they were at Upton Park they wouldn't be let back into the ground.
Zo
What about the rest?
02.04.2015 23:06
Step
And just keep repeating it
02.04.2015 23:36
noun
prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
prejudice |ˈprejədəs|
noun
1 preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience :
stereotype |ˈsterēəˌtīp; ˈsti(ə)r-|
noun
1 a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing
discrimination |disˌkriməˈnā sh ən|
noun
1 the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex
Insulting two women and a partner of one of them is insulting behaviour it's not sexism. One of the insulted was male.
It's not nice, it's not clever and it's not sexism.
You're pushing your self defined version of sexism and are politically motivated.
That is you're defining sexism in a new way so as to further your agenda.
Using "sexist" rhetorically as a trigger word. Just like people who use "anti-semitic" do to discredit the critics of Israel.
Like a PR spin merchant/troll would - it's dishonest.
I notice that none of your posts are on topic i.e. "Trouble on the terraces" i.e.
that violent aggressive abuse perpetrated by those chucking cans and bottles at Clapton which needs to be sorted out. If they were at Upton Park they wouldn't be let back into the ground.
Zo
What about the rest?
03.04.2015 00:52
Step
good article and discussion
03.04.2015 01:25
“As I said earlier we knew that Hedley was coming but had no idea how cowardly he was by bringing a group of 20 plus with him as a shield from a reaction he knew he would get.”
Surely you meant to write;
“As I said earlier we knew that Hedley was coming but had no idea how wise he was by bringing a group of 20 plus with him as a shield from a reaction he knew he would get.” ??
@Step
“misogynistic and sexist comments... Comparing a young woman to a bulldog chewing a wasp and comparing another woman to a dog. To name just two examples that were openly put on his facebook wall.”
Hmmm, don't you think you're being a bit er... over-sensitive? What next? Our lass can't call me a lazy pig or whatever?
Comparing another woman to a dog is not the same as racist speech, nor is it sexism. At best it's observational comedy, and at worst, bad manners not becoming of a gentleman, but other than that, so what?
@MDN
“a call to change standards”
Spitting and throwing bottles in a “safer space”?!!
@Zo
“Margret Thatcher was a dog” yeah or Camilla's got a face like a horse etc.
Good comments.
@anon
“I didn't know about this situation until about half an hour ago. ...kind of person who is more than capable of abuse....Obviously I could be wrong”
:D
putlog
And just keep repeating it
03.04.2015 01:40
noun
prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
---- Yes, yes you've explained at length that it's not sexist to call women dogs and whores.
More troll style arguments clearly you're misrepresenting what I've actually said
I've called three men - Blair, Cameron and Sir John Sawers - whores - and two women Thatcher and Mrs Sax Coberg Gotha.
I'm not showing any prejudice stereotyping or discrimination because of their sex.
I'm just insulting them i.e. those single individuals and not "women" as you misrepresent in your trolling post.
Why not address the issue of aggressive violent abuse witnessed at Clapton FC, you know post on topic. Rather than this rather dumb game of redefining things so they suit your agenda.
So you're a dishonest liar. Redefining "sexism" for your own political ends, i.e. so you can discredit a RMT member - It is not at all convincing.
I've called one woman a dog which was insulting to dogs. Am I a canine-ist now?
---- I think people can see what a sexist you are. Just like Hedley in fact.
I hope people can see what an idiot you are
So you won't address the topic - you misrepresent what people say - and redefine words to suit your own troll self. Classic trolling.
Zo
A small step for womankind
03.04.2015 07:37
Same goes for racist comments? Pathetic. Making racist and sexist comment is totally unacceptable under any circumstances and also makes someone unfit for a leading union position. "
What kind of comment was Pippa making when she referred to Hedley as a Cunt? She feels she is just as justified using the word as a woman, as "black people who use the n word Or Jewish people who call themselves 'yids' " yet she was abusing a man with it........
My understanding is that said union official is an elected official, and that since that thread he has been re-elected by rank and file RMT members.
Aunt C
What about the rest?
03.04.2015 10:32
Love the way Zo is now changing the user name, who I suspect is Hedley in the first place given the style and content.
I'm sure you do know Hedley is an elected offical. However elected officials have no right to be racist or sexist, and secondly there should be a disciplinary investigation by the RMT. And yes, guess what, if a woman or black person gives someone abuse, it's not ok to respond with sexist or racist language. It's not ok to call women dogs, it's not ok to refer to their partner as their owner, it's not ok to call them a bulldog chewing a wasp. The fact that Zo is laughably trying to claim it's not sexist shows how backward they are.
Now with the latest, because he has called men whores, it's ok to call women whores. You couldn't make it up. I give racist abuse to white people too, don't be so sensitive........you really haven't got a clue.
Step
Politics
03.04.2015 13:45
If it's all about politics, then surely in this day and age the left should have higher priorities than screaming at each other, throwing beer cans and stealing flags. I'd rather read a book.
Solomon
You should all come and join us on the terraces at Neasden FC ...
03.04.2015 14:17
Sid and Doris Bonkers
Step and the wolf
03.04.2015 19:04
“Ah the old be less sensitive argument.”
Yes and you're going to make yourself ill if you take umbrage over such a trivial issue.
“exactly the kind of thing Jeremy Clarkson says when he comes out with racist and sexist comments.”
Now who's being silly? Clarkson's racist and sexist comments have no relation to what is being discussed here.
“Why can't women just be a bit less sensitive about their oppression eh?”
Being called a dog isn't oppression.
“Because calling a woman a dog is clearly the same as "our lass" calling someone a lazy pig. Yes you've really taken in to account power relations in sexism there.”
And you're cult leaders have led you a merry dance. I take it you don't mix well? Have you ever lived in a working class environment? Generally there is respect between men and women. Life is permenantly tough and being thin-skinned ain't gonna cut it. Why not devote your time to equal pay and such rather than wasting it on the he said she said dogma?
“However elected officials have no right to be racist or sexist”
Quite right, so why bring up Steve Hedley? He is neither.
“if a woman or black person gives someone abuse, it's not ok to respond with sexist or racist language.”
You said he called a woman a “dog”, not a “black bitch” or such. What's your point?
“It's not ok to call women dogs, it's not ok to refer to their partner as their owner, it's not ok to call them a bulldog chewing a wasp.”
If they're barking up the wrong tree and being abusive, then in common parlance, yes it is. Same goes if it's a man.
You have chosen to write your thoughts on here. You have made nasty unsubstanciated claims and accusations about Steve Hedley based on your personal prejudices. Ah the old attention seeking polemic designed to muddy the waters.
Now, since it's Easter, here's a couple of topical tunes to accompany your introspections. Happy Easter :D
putlog
What about the rest?
04.04.2015 09:06
And yes, I'm working class. Don't patronise working class people by trying to make out we are all sexists like you, as we aren't. That's just you, and the other bigots like you.
Step
Step
What about the rest?
04.04.2015 09:08
And yes, I'm working class. Don't patronise working class people by trying to make out we are all sexists like you, as we aren't. That's just you, and the other bigots like you.
Step
Step
Step up to the bark
04.04.2015 10:13
“We know you think it's ok to call women dogs, whores etc you've said it over and over again,”
Nope, that's not true. Your “calling women whores over and over again” argument is spurious. So far I have not used the term.
Though since you press the issue I will oblige. Where Zo used the term once, as in;
“Thatcher was a dog - further more she was a whore of the corporatocray. So was Blair and so is Cameron and the Queen and Uncle Sir John Sawers and all.”
By all accounts that's a fair assessment, unless of course you feel compelled to defend these people. By all means please do so if you wish.
“And yes, I'm working class.”
May I ask what class of work you do?
“Don't patronise working class people by trying to make out we are all sexists”
Haha, I didn't say that we was. You're barking up the wrong tree again. I bet your “Thatcher's not a dog” defence goes down a treat on your estate.
C'mon Step, seriously, what good is gonna come of your relentless attacks on SH? You need to man up and accept you've got the wrong end of the stick and let go. All this tittle-tattle about dogs and whores is bogus, bordering on a kind of religious fanaticism. Step back and evaluate your actions. Are they really making a positive diffenence?
putlog
What about the rest?
04.04.2015 11:49
We're just going around in circles. Words have different meanings applied to different people because of oppression. Just repeating that you are ok calling women dogs or whores, doesn't make it any better or any less sexist, whatever context you put it in. Exactly the same with homophobic or racist terms.
You need to "man up" and stop defending sexist abuse. Is that really making a positive difference.
Step
oddly familiar
04.04.2015 14:00
Jo
steppin' on egg shells
04.04.2015 14:39
“Yes you and zo aren't the same person lol.”
Not sure what you mean by that, but I'm glad you're happy. To be clear, I'm not Zo but I agree with what they've been saying.
“We're just going around in circles.”
Yes but slowly increasing circles which help broaden the understanding, I hope.
“Words have different meanings applied to different people because of oppression.”
Yes I agree. I think intention has a lot to do with it.
“Just repeating that you are ok calling women dogs or whores, doesn't make it any better or any less sexist,”
Personally I don't use the word “whore” but definitely “dog” as, like I said before, there's a place for it in observational comedy, insult or common chit-chat when referring to men and women. Oddly, come to think of it I've heard it more from women than men when describing other women.
“Exactly the same with homophobic or racist terms.”
Hang on a minute. Are you moving towards racism, sexism and homophobia are all only done by men? I hope not. Anyway racism and homophobia are not in the same league by a long chalk.
“You need to "man up" and stop defending sexist abuse.”
Well there's the nub of the disagreement. I don't think SH was being sexist but you do. If I did, believe me, I would speak up. The man, who was found innocent, is under a constant barage of abuse and harrassment, why not pick on someone more deserving. Hounding the vindicated SH just makes you look bad outside your “cult”.
Anyways I'll think a bit more about what you've been saying whilst I eat me egg. Cheers
putlog
What about the rest?
04.04.2015 15:20
It's not about intention, it's about power relations in society. Such as saying English people are thick, doesn't have nearly the same impact as calling Irish people thick, because of the historic oppression of Irish people, and the insults that went with it. Just like it's nonsense to compare calling a man a dog or a whore, with calling a woman a dog or a whore. And it doesn't make it any better because the woman is a total reactionary like Thatcher. Just like throwing racist abuse at Mugabe wouldn't be ok.
Not sure why you'd think that I am saying racism, homophobia and sexism are all done by men, never said anything along those lines. But the fact that you see racism and homophobia as not in the same league as sexism, shows your sexism.
I can't say whether SH was guilty of domestic violence or not. I can say I don't find the story of his partner beating herself up very plausible. I also think, on the balance of what he has put on facebook that he is a sexist, nasty bloke, and not fit to be in his RMT position. You don't. We're obviously not going to change our views on that.
Also I'm not sure what the cult comments are about. Bizarre!
Step
time for a cuppa
04.04.2015 17:06
Yeah, good point.
@Step
“But the fact that you see racism and homophobia as not in the same league as sexism, shows your sexism.”
You've misunderstood what I wrote. I was saying, IMO, racism and homophobia are not equal, for a number of reasons.
“Also I'm not sure what the cult comments are about. Bizarre!”
I think Jo answered that one.
putlog
Mind the Step
05.04.2015 22:27
Hurrah, you, the RMT and the Met are agreed on this. Yet a whole bunch of self-declared lefties appear to think that they can bar him and attack him in perpetuity.
"I can say I don't find the story of his partner beating herself up very plausible."
I have read a fair bit of the stuff surrounding this issue, including the statement that Steve Hedley posted to the net, and the information posted at saferspaces.exposed and I don't recall having heard any such claim. Any links so we can judge for ourselves?
"I also think, on the balance of what he has put on facebook that he is a sexist, nasty bloke, and not fit to be in his RMT position. You don't. We're obviously not going to change our views on that."
Yup - we remember. You think Pippa has every right as an oppressed woman to go and fling around abuse on his page, and he has no right to respond. I think that if Pippa wants to be treated with respect, she should lead by example. If you expect him to turn the other cheek, then you really should expect a little more of Pippa. Or do you think her oppression has turned her into an imbecile who has no control over her own behaviour?
Aunt C
What about the rest?
06.04.2015 01:54
I have also "read a fair bit", saferspaces is a joke.
Pippa, who I don't know, might "fling around abuse", but that is no excuse to respond with totally sexist terms. In just the same way that it would be no excuse to respond in racist terms, no matter what abuse you have thrown at you. You can keep throwing up smoke screens but what Hedley has said is there for everyone to see. Shows what he is like, a total sexist. His apologists can keep down playing it and making excuses but it shows what he is.
Step
@step
06.04.2015 08:01
you wrote "I have also "read a fair bit", saferspaces is a joke. "
Can you offer any more sustance to accusation that saferspaces.exposed is a joke? The collective behind the website, and it is a collective not just one person, took the time to study the internal report by the RMT. Have you? Have you even spoke to anyone involved?
In addtion to seeing the RMT report, We were given access to other relevent material. Some of which had been distorted and presented to prove the guilt of Steve Hedley. If this was all true, why was there a need for lies, manipulation and underhand tactics?
Both Caroline and Andy Littlechild, her rep during this process, were offered right of reply. They never responded to the offer.
The attack on Ciaron O Reilly, The Casa bar, and on Steve and his friends at Clapton all use the same tactics, to provoke a reaction towards women so that the charges being thrown around can be proved.
Step, with a bit of luck you have actually read the website, but I suspect you haven't, just like our friend Glynn who was so confident that the RMT had never said Steve had no case to answer. Of course this is mentioned quite a few times on the website. Had he bothered to read it he would have known that. He also rubbished the website.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which can not fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
--HERBERT SPENCER
anon
Step down?
06.04.2015 09:25
You didn't provide a link so that we can all check out YOUR claim that:
"I can say I don't find the story of his partner beating herself up very plausible."
It is an emotive claim which obviously isn't credible, but where did you get it from?
You are flooding this thread with assertions, not answering queries and now making claims that cannot be checked.
Are you in favour of people being abused and hounded on the basis of chinese whispers and lies?
Are you a joke?
Aunt C
What about the rest?
06.04.2015 10:32
Step
What about the rest?
06.04.2015 10:42
Apparently it was the RMT investigators who suggested this. But as said I don't really want to get in to the DV allegations and won't comment on it any further.
What I'm concerned about is Hedley's sexist remarks. Like anyone who makes open sexist or racist remarks, they aren't fit to have a leading role in our trade union movement. The RMT should investigtate his remarks and start a disciplinary hearing. I don't expect the people on here who are saying it's ok to call women dogs and whores to agree, but they have shown their sexism on this thread.
Step
@step
06.04.2015 11:43
anon
Side Step
06.04.2015 12:57
But it does appear that you are in favour ogf the AWL stance on this matter:
“We are NOT claiming to know for sure whether Steve Hedley is guilty. We accept that in legal or disciplinary terms he should be regarded as innocent until proved guilty (and our concern here is not to try to reopen the RMT investigation).”
They then go on to imply that there someone can be innocent in legal and disciplinary terms, and yet still somehow guilty of the same allegations:
That is not an issue here, but a straw man to distract attention from the real issues, which are:
a) Caroline Leneghan’s claims (see here – warning for descriptions of violence and images of injuries);
Those are the claims of which they say he should be regarded as innocent in legal and disciplinary terms, and that they do no not claim to know for sure if he is guilty, and then like you switch to the thread on facebook, which we cannot read in full because the only version available in a version butchered by Pippa Georgeson.
"c) Indisputable (and undisputed), documented evidence in the separate case where Hedley behaved towards a young woman activist in a very sexist way – about which the SP has never said a word."
And again they seem to have no interest in context or justice, just like yourself. They want to disregard the behaviour of Ms. Georgeson and focus on what Steve said as if it occurred in a complete vacuum.
And you have flooded this thread with this same claim, as if somehow it justifies people being spat at and pelted with bottles because they were standing near Steve Hedley.
So, are you for, or against abuse? It really isn't clear.
Do you honestly think that words on a facebook thread by someone who has been provoked do more damage than a chucked can of beer?
Do you think the way forward is to isolate men who have had complaints made against them, refuse them any right to defend themselves, ignore any disciplinary and legal investigations which don't establish guilt and to be complicit in, and encouraging of physical attacks on them?
Do you really think this is the way forward for the left?
Aunt C
What about the rest?
06.04.2015 13:33
I'll repeat again. Steve Hedley has made totally sexist comments, calling women dogs, rottweilers and comparing their partners to their owners. For this reason he is unfit to be in his position in the RMT and the RMT should hold a disciplinary investigation. The reason it matters about Hedley is because is he is a senior representative of the trade union movement, and he isn't fit to have that post.
I know you've explained the context as you see it. I don't think there are any reasons to respond in a sexist or racist way, no matter what the provocation or who the person is.
Step
I'll try again
06.04.2015 13:38
“We are NOT claiming to know for sure whether Steve Hedley is guilty. We accept that in legal or disciplinary terms he should be regarded as innocent until proved guilty (and our concern here is not to try to reopen the RMT investigation)."
They then go on to imply that there someone can be innocent in legal and disciplinary terms, and yet still somehow guilty of the same allegations:
That is not an issue here, but a straw man to distract attention from the real issues, which are: ..........."
You are confused how that could be so? How somebody could be innocent in legal and disciplinary terms and still somehow guilty of the same allegations? You think this is a "straw man" and not central to what is going on?
LOOK -- I am over 70, and in my lifetime the STANDARD of how such matters are judged has changed greatly. Not what "the facts" of the case but what those facts MEANT. I'll be blunt, when I was a young many "the facts" relevant in a case of rape were things like "did she fight back at the risk of her life" (if not, it wasn't rape) or "did she quit the job" (if not, it wasn't on the job sexual harassment) or "did she drop out of that course or school" (if not, it wasn't academic sexual harassment), or "was she modestly dressed", etc. In other words, those were "the facts" then used to determine "she, or he, did not consent". But those aren't the standards we go by now, are they? (at least I hope none of you think so)
What I am trying to sway is you have to try to discover in what sense those who are saying " innocent in legal and disciplinary terms, and yet still somehow guilty of the same allegations" mean that. Are they saying that they don't disagree with how the facts of the case were decided but do disagree with how the court or disciplinary tribunal define the offense?
That we might not agree SHOULD be familiar to us. Often we have comrades up before the court for some action or other whose defense (with which we often agree) is NOT "didn't do it" but rather "what we did was right action, necessary, should not be considered a crime". A disagreement not with "the facts of the case" but with the standard to be applied interpreting their meaning. Well this is just the reverse side of that coin.
It is indeed a problem within our movements (not just "political" but also "environmental", "animal rights", etc.). Of course, I am less familiar with how much of that might be going on where you are than over here. But to give you an example, at the last couple RRR's we were at there was a cute "skit" acting out the now to be considered approved standard "the absence of no does not mean yes; yes means yes" (if no positive consent, then not consentual)
MDN
Quick Step
06.04.2015 13:54
So, remind us when it is acceptable to call a human being a cunt.
Aunt C
What about the rest?
06.04.2015 14:02
But more to the point you still don't seem to get me saying I have no interest at all in discussing the DV case any further.
Hedley is a proven sexist in his comments. There should be an RMT investigation and he should be removed from his post.
Step
Miss Step
06.04.2015 14:24
Aunt C
What about the rest?
06.04.2015 15:33
But there is a difference between sexist and racist abuse and swearing.
As an aside it says something about Hedley's judgment as the second most senior person in the RMT that he thinks it's ok to get in to these kinds of public exchanges.
Step
Two Step
06.04.2015 15:44
So, it would have been alright for Steve Hedley to call Pippa Georgeson a cunt?
"As an aside it says something about Hedley's judgment as the second most senior person in the RMT that he thinks it's ok to get in to these kinds of public exchanges. "
He wasn't second in command at the time. As has been poiinted out several times, he was re-elected after that.
Aunt C
Step into Obsession
06.04.2015 16:01
I mentioned them once. To point out that you and them share the exact same viewpoint.
You have posted a quarter of the comments on this thread. That seems quite obsessive.
" It's also weird that this "collective" choose to make DV allegations against men their cause for justice, given everything that goes on in the world. But each to their own I guess. "
The thread is about an attack on people at a football match. Just in case you'd forgotten. Given everything else that goes on the world maybe the attack wasn't necessary.
"But more to the point you still don't seem to get me saying I have no interest at all in discussing the DV case any further."
In fact my previous post was this:
"Step: "I don't think there are any reasons to respond in a sexist or racist way, no matter what the provocation or who the person is. "
So, remind us when it is acceptable to call a human being a cunt."
Which means it was you who raised the matter.
"Hedley is a proven sexist in his comments"
Have you read this thread? Not everyone agrees
"There should be an RMT investigation and he should be removed from his post. "
Yes, I think the AWL already tried that. I already gave you the link.
Aunt C
What about the rest?
06.04.2015 16:01
He clealry shouldn't be in a senior position in the RMT if he thinks sexist abuse is ok, provoked or otherwise.
Step
What about the rest?
06.04.2015 16:04
Obviously some people don't agree Hedley is a sexist, sexists wouldn't for a start. Including the person amusingly using different user names on here. But his public exchanges clearly show he is sexist and clearly show he isn't fit to be a leading trade unionist.
Step
Step still here eh
06.04.2015 16:27
Quote step
I'll repeat again. Steve Hedley has made totally sexist comments, calling women dogs, rottweilers and comparing their partners to their owners.
FFS Those are Insults - there is no sexism there - you act like a whore of Boris - how many times
sexism |ˈsekˌsizəm|
noun
prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
No prejudice No stereotyping No discrimination - insults against 2 women (clue not all women) and a man - not made on the "basis of sex"
So you have redefined "sexism" and "sexist" and are using them as trigger words in your one person propaganda campaign against someone in the RMT, someone who I assume is opposing Boris' plans to get rid of human beings working on the tube.
What you're doing is transparent you're a troll nothing more.
Go and bother some real sexists you know ones that fit the definition rather than your made up one.
Zo
See definitions of Sexism
06.04.2015 17:21
You're speculating and a little delusional
---- You can just keep repeating yourself and I will too. You say the comments ---- aren't sexist,
What you're not getting is I'm checking the insults against the definition of sexism - you know semantics - the thing you don't give a shit about - preferring instead to peddle your lies and deceit in your one person propaganda campaign.
So I look at the definition of sexism - and here are 3 for you to ponder
sexism |ˈsekˌsizəm|
noun
prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
Sexism - or gender discrimination,
is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender. Sexism affects men and women, but especially women. It has been linked to stereotypes and gender roles, and may include the belief that one sex or gender is intrinsically superior to another.
[sek-siz-uh m]
noun
1.
attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of gender roles.
2.
discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex or gender, as in restricted job opportunities, especially such discrimination directed against women.
3.
ingrained and institutionalized prejudice against or hatred of women; misogyny.
And I look at the text supplied (the insults) to see if it they are sexist given the definitions of sexism above and find that the insults are not sexist - they are insults - not nice - not clever and not sexist.
----I repeat that they are and make Hedley unfit for his position.
Yes we're aware of your political motivation it's why you look like one of Boris' prostitutes.
----The fact you can't see they are sexist, just means you are a sexist as well. ---End of really.
No you see I'm using sexism and sexist correctly as per definitions i.e. a semantically correct use of the words sexism and sexist see the definitions above. You on the other hand are redefining sexism/sexist for your own political ends i.e. to try and discredit someone in the RMT. You're not at all an honest person.
Zo
What about the rest?
06.04.2015 17:26
But it remains the case that the terms are sexist, and because Hedley uses such terms he is unfit to have a leading position in the RMT.
Step
Now it's Racists
06.04.2015 17:38
You are definitely delusional - living on a planet of your own definitions.
The epithet for you is "useful idiot" for the pimpin' corporate whore Boris Johnson
Zo
Step has overstepped
06.04.2015 18:13
Isn't engaged in a conversation and misrepresents what others have said
Just likes using the word sexist for seemingly random reasons
likes to call people who don't agree with them sexist.
Doesn't post on topic
So see you Step
Moderator
Football & dv for beginners
07.04.2015 11:06
...
For RMT Members Only
07.04.2015 21:12
I was Caroline Leneghan's RMT union representative throughout her complaint against Steve Hedley RMT AGS
I stand by everything I did as her rep; and would do it all again without hesitation
I will not address this any further on Facebook or the internet, If any RMT union members wish to meet me to discuss Solidarity Collectives claims I will meet with them in an appropriate place such as unity house
Andy Littlechild
Andy Littlechild
e-mail:
andy.littlechild68@gmail.com
The first time as tragedy, the second time as farce
08.04.2015 00:25
"At no point was the dropping of Caroline's complaint by the General Secretary stated as because Steve Hedley "had no case to answer" as claimed by him in his statement!."
The memory hole
For Non RMT Members
08.04.2015 03:30
Non RMT Members can refer to whatever articles to entertain themselves they wish to (including articles by myself); you are not in possesion of the full facts despite what you may even honestly believe
Only Caroline Leneghan and myself know what was said to us and when, so there will be no further discussion on the matter with you from me
Andy Littlechild
A non RMT member entertaining themselves with a Littlechild lie
08.04.2015 05:59
The memory hole
Some clarification
08.04.2015 08:14
Anon
Derailing the argument
08.04.2015 10:21
Anon
Apologies
08.04.2015 11:29
Soz I'm partly responsible, but the argument seemed to be being made that 2 comments made in a trading of insults on the internet in 2012 were some how a justification for what happened at Clapton FC. Any other football club would not let anyone taking part in violence like that back into their ground. Have the club been shown the video evidence?
Zo
This must bring joy to your average Britian"1st"er+ U-KIpper
08.04.2015 12:20
Cooperative Syndicalist
You're all missing the point
08.04.2015 13:56
She should apologise for slavery and pay reparations then all this can be put to bed.
Malatesta
Thar she blows!
08.04.2015 18:16
And the 100th comment goes to the Indymedia troll. Well done arsehole.
Crow
Steps were made but the footprints lead where?
08.04.2015 20:22
“In relation to distortions about... me contained in the article "Safer Spaces Exposed" by the Solidarity Collective”
Andy, can you post a link to, or say in your own words, what distortions have been made about you, just to set the record straight. Otherwise it looks a bit like sour grapes. Did the SC inaccuratley describe your involvement in the case?
“Non RMT Members can refer to whatever articles to entertain themselves they wish to...”
This matter is not entertainment. It's a disgrace!
“you are not in possesion of the full facts despite what you may even honestly believe”
The facts are there to see and SH was cleared of any wrong doing. A small group of disingenuous so-called feminists then went about spreading malicious gossip, esculating to physical attacks. What's your agenda Andy? It just doesn't add up.
@Zo
“Any other football club would not let anyone taking part in violence like that back into their ground. Have the club been shown the video evidence?”
The Clapton Ultra page is saying this;
“We have spoken at length with the management of the club and they have assured us that those responsible for causing the confrontation will be refused entry if they return.”
It continues;
“At a non-league level, we want to create a real alternative to discrimination still prevalent within football - a fans' space that opposes racism, homophobia and the patriarchal aggression...” by indescriminately hurling projectiles, sputum and abuse at a group of fellow supporters. Nice :(
@Clapton Ultras
The accusations against SH have been dealt with. Let it go.
Where's your evidence that your group were attacked by another group “notably wearing RMT armbands”?
And;
“began throwing beer and attempted to assault other fans.”
There's a video above that shows the opposite of what you claim.
What say you?
putlog
hair of the dogs?
08.04.2015 21:44
Projectiles (beer cans?) can clearly be seen agressively thrown by the group of women et al in the direction of football fans in the stand, who are in close proximity;
45 secs
55 secs
1.25 mins
1.35 mins
putlog
Sisters Uncut
10.04.2015 11:37
People need to have a long hard look at these gob throwing shit stirrers and ascertain their agenda.
TC
e-mail:
Tallchris99@hotmail.co.uk
In solidarity with all my comrades...
10.04.2015 17:30
Alt
nothing to see hear
29.04.2015 18:33
Just like on any friday/saturday night outside a pub
Seen it a million times before, been on the receiving end of abusive drunk women outside pubs looking to stir up confrontation. A quick slap usually brings them to their senses and they go off looking for easier prey. I dont feel guity about that at all, if you going to come up to me agressive and drunk and intend to try cause me harm i'll defend myself
Dave
Anyone with any sense should steer clear of Clapton Ultras.
08.06.2015 11:10
London Celtic supporter
Cheap goods
17.09.2015 08:41
Download: Cheap goods - mp3 3.9M
eywppwit
e-mail:
johne261@gmail.com