His recent booklet about the killing of Blair Peach is good.
It might well be considered good propaganda in certain circles but the problem is you can't really believe (other than the observation that Blair Peach is dead) a word in it. Why? Because Renton's method seems to be to arrive at a conclusion
prior to doing his research. And on the journey inconvenient truths are either side-stepped or callously thrown under the bus, while the 'facts' are assembled in an order that will bolster the core pre-prepared proposition.
In truth he is the liberal left's answer to David Irving. But unlike the latter he dosen't rely on the one big lie ('Hitler didn't know') but peppers his work with a myriad of smaller lies and asserts without visible cause or foundation.
Take for example his review posted in 5510. From the outset he decides to award the author hero status, applauding his "life-long commitment to anti-fascism" while predictably omitting any mention of his abrupt (and subsequently well publicized) ejection for might be termed 'gross misconduct' from AFA ranks in 1996.
Confidently he reveals that Hann was "in the mid-80's publicity officer for RA". I have no idea what being a publicity officer for RA might have entailed during that time (if such a post even existed?) but in any case it couldn't have been Hann in it as he didn't even join as a supporting member until 1987. And could Renton really be unaware of the equally well-aired accusations regarding the considerable padding of his hero's CV in No Retreat and in subsequent interviews where he was often introduced as an AFA founding member?
If he does, he pretends otherwise, going with the flow, transforming in the process what amounted to a seven year front-line career ('87-94) into 'a lifelong commitment', something even Hann, as far as I am aware, himself never claimed in his autobiography.
"In contrast to AFA's official history" (Beating the Fascists),"not all battles according to Hann's sources, were won" Renton declares with evident satisfaction.
Almost needless to say he considers it beneath him to provide even the teeniest example of BTF's aggrandizing perfidy. This is hardly accidental for by failing to do so he sneakily leaves the casual reader with the impression that such episodes are so common as to be a given.
But as readers of BTF will know it hardly shies away from the more ticklish moments - Bermondsey, Enkel, Abbey Arms, Kensington Library not to mention the less than glorious saga surrounding Hann himself.
Even when taking into account what has gone before it still comes as something of a shock to read that BTF "stops with the Battle of Waterloo in 1992". Simply in order, Renton accuses, to allow the author to duck out of the erroneous task of charting AFA's rapid "demise" thereafter.
Again what his demise amounted to is not explored further. Some unspoken but inherent flaw seems to be the implication.
Unluckily for him, as many on here can testify, not only are there another dozen chapters covering absolutely pivotal events including Welling, the Isle of Dogs and Beackon's victory, Combat 18 and it's demise, the BNP's cessation of violence, and so forth, it could be argued that the militant strategy didn't visibly come to to fruition until 1996 with the the crushing of the assembled BNP in Manchester followed by the very public humbling of C18 at Hoborn. Not too shabby for a group Renton smugly announces suffered an ignominious collapse 4 years earlier!
All told 'Renton's missing chapters' amount to 30,000 words, or putting in another way - a full quarter of pretty hefty book.
Now it does raise the question of whether he read BTF or not? Does it matter?
Ultimately so shameless and cavalier are the methods employed historical truth and Mr Renton begin and end as strangers.
He is listed as a contributor in 'Against the Grain'. This is an academic book costing a handsome sum. Unlike a pamphlet for 'tiny trots' Manchester University will expect a certain rigor in terms of research. If he follows the same formula in it, it may prove career ending.
.
