rampart | 30.12.2004 04:58 | Free Spaces | London
rampart
Homepage:
http://www.rampart.co.nr
Birmingham
Cambridge
Liverpool
London
Oxford
Sheffield
South Coast
Wales
World
Other UK IMCs
Bristol/South West
London
Northern Indymedia
Scotland
Afghanistan
Analysis
Animal Liberation
Anti-Nuclear
Anti-militarism
Anti-racism
Bio-technology
Climate Chaos
Culture
Ecology
Education
Energy Crisis
Fracking
Free Spaces
Gender
Globalisation
Health
History
Indymedia
Iraq
Migration
Ocean Defence
Other Press
Palestine
Policing
Public sector cuts
Repression
Social Struggles
Technology
Terror War
Workers' Movements
Zapatista
Mayday 2007
No Borders Days of Action 06
M18 Anti War
Mayday 2006
Refugee Week 2006
SOCPA
Day of Action Against Migration Controls
DSEi 2005
ESF 2004
Server Seizure
May Day 2004
2003 Bush Visit
DSEi 2003
May Day 2003
No War Feb 15
Spaces
rampART
Bowl Court
56a Infoshop
LARC
Pogo Cafe
Groups/Projects
Offline/InfoUsurpa
No Borders
Rising Tide
Freedom Bookshop
Advisory Service For Squatters
RoR samba band
Space Hijackers
LDMG
Campaigns
Disarm DSEi
Food Not Bombs
London No2ID
Bikes Not Bombs
Climate Camp
Regular Events
Critical Mass
Anarchist Bookfair
Anarchist Forum
Comments
Hide the following 13 comments
WHAT A PITY!
30.12.2004 08:55
Doug.
What is going on?
30.12.2004 15:38
Rudolf Rocker
aggresive aggro
30.12.2004 16:41
part
InDJestion
30.12.2004 17:11
Hang the DJ and put on your own CDs.
hangman
I told this geezer to stop egoisng a while ago via your website...
30.12.2004 18:20
The only answer I can give you is Jah Love.
King Amdo
Can't you find an alternative venue?
30.12.2004 18:34
Party goer
no other venue
30.12.2004 20:07
rampART has been big enough for 200-300 people which is fine for a nice party and big enough to be worth while in terms of a bit of cash for the building.
what the building is not big enough for is big egos and a turf war.
parts
sorry to hear it....
30.12.2004 21:07
charlie
Another way of looking at it....
31.12.2004 14:44
Take care,
protection!
Blessed be!
King Amdo
right
01.01.2005 01:57
anonymous
no
01.01.2005 02:09
i've been spending most of my time working for a place where people treat each other well, where people have the chance to take responsability for themselves. and i end up with a smashed head (again).
sorry, that's too much.
as long as everybody just looking for their own benefit, this movement is no better than the world we try to change.
s
sensationalism?...
02.01.2005 20:30
having heard the story from a dfferent source, and being involved in other similar projects...
the dj in question is not a 'comercial' dj. he is not an example of rampART 'trying to be cool'. he has been involved at rampARTs for months, and has brought in a lot of other people. yeah, he's been involved at commercial venues, as a means to promote peace movement activities. if problems had already arisen with this individual, why had they not previously been addressed?
the issue of decision making is a problem in all of these projects. but isn't it supposed to have something to do with collective responsibility? each person who had a problem with this individual could have brought it up.
is the problem to do with formal processes and structures, or is it just to do with personalities and personal relationships? collective responsibility shouldn't mean that everything has to go through a plenary consensus type thing...it should mean that everyone, working for the good of the project, will be doing their damndest to ensure the project is protected and will therefore overcome any personal difficulties.
this is not the first time that there has been personal conflicts of interest at rampART, nor is it the first time it has resulted in an unfortunate conclusion. but sometimes people just leave the building because they've had enough of the hassle, rather than allowing it to escalate. but then people leaving the building is reducing the collective, increasing the amount of presure laid on a very small core group.
besides...to my understanding of events the person who was hospitalised was not actually involved in the fight, but may have simply been caught in the general confusion. perhaps the report of the incident is a little misleading?
conflict happens. just because we all want to live in a utopian paradise, doesn't mean we're there yet. the way we deal with these issues is fundamental to building this 'other world' of which we speak so readily. the whole thing is an experiment. things will inevitably get complicated. lets try to always keep sight of what we're trying to achieve here.
of course, its easy for me to spout all this, i'm not there...
i know this will be resolved somehow.
tha rinse
yeah, whatever, thanks for your input
10.01.2005 12:05
The DJ in question has been 'involved' only since after the ESF (which is when rampART radio started) and only mostly in terms of doing a weekly set on the radio and bringing other DJs.
"if problems had already arisen with this individual, why had they not previously been addressed?"
The issues were being addressed, thats when he attacked somebody.
"isn't it supposed to have something to do with collective responsibility? each person who had a problem with this individual could have brought it up."
Personally I see collective responsibility in this case as being the attempts made as a collective to deal with the accusations and concerns that had been expressed by individuals rather than leave it up to them to deal with as individuals. Seeing as the problem was one of aggressive and threatening behavior, it would have been unreasonable I think to leave it to those people to face the problem alone.
"is the problem to do with formal processes and structures, or is it just to do with personalities and personal relationships?"
In this case I think it is the process more than anything else. If you get the process right with enough people being involed in meetings on a regular basis then you can mostly bypass the issues that come out of personality clashes.
"collective responsibility shouldn't mean that everything has to go through a plenary consensus type thing...it should mean that everyone, working for the good of the project, will be doing their damndest to ensure the project is protected and will therefore overcome any personal difficulties."
Obviously, and in this case it clearly wasn't the good of the project that the DJ had in mind when he was planning to hijack the rampart fundraising party. Protecting the project meant projecting the vunerable users of the building from having to endure threatening behavior.
"this is not the first time that there has been personal conflicts of interest at rampART, nor is it the first time it has resulted in an unfortunate conclusion. but sometimes people just leave the building because they've had enough of the hassle, rather than allowing it to escalate. but then people leaving the building is reducing the collective, increasing the amount of presure laid on a very small core group."
Interesting comment, shame you have provided no further information about these unfortunate conclusions. Personally I can't think of any comparable situation at all. Perhaps you'd like to ellaborate?
"besides...to my understanding of events the person who was hospitalised was not actually involved in the fight, but may have simply been caught in the general confusion. perhaps the report of the incident is a little misleading?"
The personal hospitalised was attempting to breakup/prevent the fight by getting between the two people directlt involved. She was thrown aside during the attack. How was the report misleading? How was her injury any the less important or injust as a result of her not actually being personally involved in the fighting?
"conflict happens. just because we all want to live in a utopian paradise, doesn't mean we're there yet. the way we deal with these issues is fundamental to building this 'other world' of which we speak so readily."
Yes, I agree but I also sense from your tone that you think the situatition was handled incorrectly. I'd like to know how you think it should have been handled as you seem to be suggesting that those who were concerned by the DJs behavior should have dealt with it themselves which, as I have already said, I think would be avoiding collective responsibility. When they had tried to address the issue orginally, the situation had quickly esculated to the point of the DJ making threats. The issue of the party could certainly have been avoided had the process of decision making and the operating principles of the project been made much clearer to all.
"of course, its easy for me to spout all this, i'm not there..."
indeed
fog