Dave was a good mate of mine and Louise has become a good friend as well, no real mystery there, I wont ask her because she is still grieving for her dead partner and the father of her children and I wont add to her suffering, you have chosen to raise it on a public forum and therefore I feel entitled to ask you to explain something that you claim to have happened and which I feel doesn't add up for the reasons that I put out in the post that you quoted.
I find this type of statement to be quite objectionable frankly, because it is not based on any political analysis or any notion of organisational responsibility. It's based on 'friendship' and emotion, not politics and comradeship. Many others were comrades and friends of Dave's too
(and your comrades too) and can still see the truth through the rose-tinted mist.
I don't think that there was anyone in Manchester closer to Dave than G, so how come he is unable to defend Dave?
Is he a liar too, as is implied with all others who promote or accept the Red Action narrative?
How come he feels no responsibility to protect either Dave's memory or Louise's grief, but you do?
I don't know if it's a case of people who weren't consulted about BTF feeling that they should have been and biting back at it, but the driving force of the BTF narrative came from London and the main organisers around the country, as it had to imho. It was necessary to provide a definitive history and political explanation of AFA, where it had come from and how its basic tenet of
'ideological and physical confrontation' rolled out in a number of areas. It would have been impossible to write a book like that based on the narrative of every single member of AFA, it couldn't even have been written based on extensive interviews with the membership of Red Action, because it wasn't that type of book. It was not
'hoolie porn' (the category that perhaps best describes
No Retreat) nor was it
'oral history' (as
Physical Resistance appears to be). It was the explanation of the political
modus operandi of the leadership of AFA, with use of anecdotal evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of that M.O.
I believe that
Beating The Fascists is an invaluable contribution to the history of the anti-fascist struggle. Imho it is a definitive explanation of the politics of AFA. The same cannot be said for No Retreat, it is inaccurate in a whole number of areas and, if anything, its authors consulted with a smaller milieu than did BTF, which saw the virtual reformation of the RA National Council to ratify early drafts in the run-up to publication. I've pointed out a number of errors in NR that only relate to Scotland, others here have far greater beefs than I have with NR.
Physical Resistance is a far better book than NR and -
had it not been for the previous book and his denials of the circumstances around his departure from AFA and RA - Dave Hann might have left this world a happier man and been better thought of by all with this book. It might have served as fitting contrition for past errors, but the damage caused by NR, the issues around his expulsion from RA and AFA, and the attempts to block publication of BTF, have all left a sour taste.
There is also, of course, Louise Purbrick's personal contribution as Dave's editor, co-writer and wife/lover. The added emotion and melodrama from her has served no politically productive purpose imho and has sought to further divide people based on emotional blackmail and false perceptions of loyalty.
That her role in threatening legal action against the publishers of
Beating The Fascists is now either obscured, dismissed or re-spun here by her supporters and put down to 'grief' is interesting. Is she the driving force or the 'patsy'? There is little in her behaviour which suggests that she is not a willing participant. Whatever her motives, emotional or political, there is no justification for the legal threats and 6 month hounding of the publishers of BTF by Carter-Fuck, who acted on Louise's instruction.
