Beating the Fascists: The authorised history of Anti-Fascist Action

[steeplejack]

I bought this recently on a visit to London and must admit I'm very favourably impressed by it.

I have no particular axe to grind with any of the left/militant anti-fa sides involved and was not, like many on this thread, directly involved in any of the events described.

However, to an outsider, it does seem a pretty honest account of the times, and paints both good and bad results from direct force anti-fascism pretty clearly. I had no idea that the Welling riot was held to be a state sponsored riot, nor was I fully aware of the level of provocation from state actors that anti fascist militants faced.

At times it does descend into a bit of an Ealing comedy- "a right hook planted him in the geraniums", various fascists soiling themselves at inopportune moments, etc, laugh out loud funny stuff like that relieve lengthy and sometimes a little tedious minutiae of internal organisational politics.

The troubling thing is that the RA / IWCA analysis has largely been borne out by subsequent events, and that anti-fascists, who according to this account largely battered the BNP/NF/B&H/C18 off the streets, have subsequently been left stalled at the traffic lights as the BNP have cleaned up electorally. Hopelessly divided along sectarian lines and with almost as many counter-strategies as organisations, the cobweb left and fellow travellers are now so far behind the BNP electorally as to be (almost) an irrelevance. That truly is tragic outcome. Ironically, a mixture of internal tensions and external criminalisation may do for the BNP in its current format, but another organisation will quickly spring up in its stead if that happens.

A good book, but people have been on this and other message-boards for a decade now trying to work out the best way to counter the electoral growth of the far right, and we're still no nearer any kind of convincing answer. A second volume in the series- charting the rise of the IWCA and its successes and failures, may well be an interesting contribution. the later stages of the radical anti-fascist project are a little bit skated over towards the end which is perhaps the book's one weakness.

 

[Demu]

The release of Beating the Fascists, despite one or two legal hurdles, has again raised the controversy surrounding Dave Hann and the book No Retreat. Louise Purbrick is entitled to express what she believes to be true, and likewise so do those who have been active in AFA during these years and worked with her late partner.

Your defence of Dave Hann is understandable but the events surrounding his arrest occurred when you were not in a position to make a judgement as you were not aware of the circumstances at the time, and neither were you present in court to witness the case against both Dave and Mark, and the defence subsequently used to achieve an acquittal.

Hann’s credibility, rests on whether he was guilty of, or complicit in, the mugging of a gay person with his friend Mark Turner. This activity by either or both of them, either singularly or jointly cannot be reconciled with that of the anti fascist activists portrayed in No Retreat.

The first tenet of your rebuttal is that Dave was ‘acquitted’ of the charges lodged against him in court.

Dave Hann chose not to elaborate on the circumstances of his arrest for robbery in the book No Retreat and to my knowledge has never given any explanation publicly which differs from that which he gave privately to his comrades in the Salutation, where he admitted his role in the affair.

The only ‘proof ‘offered for Dave’s innocence is the verdict achieved in court on the day, and the details of how this was achieved are now explained in Beating the Fascists.
A statement issued by LM Price on behalf of Dave Hann on 16th February 2004 states ‘Dave had been charged with robbery alongside a friend, Mark Turner, who pleaded guilty to the lesser offence of theft. Liverpool Crown Court awarded him a £600 fine as opposed to a custodial sentence because the incident was not considered to involve violence. It should be pointed out that the sexual identity of the key police witness, the ‘gay man’, was just an assumption made during the trial (and by Red Action) and not a declaration made by the man himself.’ As the book now explains, his sexual identity was revealed under cross examination by the defence team, and was central to Hann’s acquittal.

It should be added that, as no meetings were held with Dave’s co-defendant Mark, any defence subsequently used by Mark, can only have been a construct between the defendants themselves, regardless of where Dave received the inspiration! By Mark taking the blame, Dave avoided having to take the witness stand and explain his role in the event, whilst under cross examination.

For many anti fascists there are far too many unanswered questions surrounding Hann’s involvement with Mark on the night he was arrested, for him to be innocent. The consistent stonewalling of all opportunities to answer these questions, has only added to this disquiet and instead hide behind the claim that it is all a political smear just does not stand up to scrutiny.

What was Dave Hann doing down a back alley near a gay club at 4 in the morning with Mark Turner.

Why did the innocent victim of a violent street robbery identify Dave Hann and Mark Turner to a passing motorbike policeman who apprehended them in the area of the attack almost immediately.

Why would the victim lie?

Why were they jointly charged with the same offence?

What was Dave Hann doing in possession of the proceeds of the robbery?

Why did Mark consistently plead not guilty for over a year right up until the Crown Court appearance, only to then change his plea to guilty?

Surely an innocent Dave Hann (or his legal team if aware) would have pointed this out to Mark at the preliminary stage, or certainly by the committal stage.

Why did Hann not report his predicament to his comrades in Red Action and AFA.

Because he was clearly innocent, is not the answer that springs to mind is it?

The second tenet of your rebuttal is that Hann left Red Action for ideological reasons.

In No Retreat Hann says that he did not support the IWCA initiative as it meant that his commitment to Red Attitude and Freedom of Movement would suffer, and as a result this led him to resign.

Red Attitude was already on its uppers, having produced 5 issues in 94/95 season, this was down to only 3 issues in 95/96 season. It was losing money and alienating both football supporters and anti fascists alike. Witness the city fascists / united anti fascists spin put on an encounter between AFA (midlands)and a BNP supporter wearing a Man City shirt on a Troops Out march. And its editor was on serious charges.

The Freedom of Movement initiative was allied to but also independent of AFA and functioned regardless of him, both before and after his departure. Red Attitude fanzine continued to be produced and sold after Dave Hanns departure.

When challenged within Red Action over the direction of the fanzine, in a document entitled, ‘What is the Score’ , Hann responded with a document entitled, ‘This is the Score’, which also served as his resignation letter. The follow up document entitled, ‘They think its all over…Or is it?’, reveals the real reason why this particular little spat about the direction of a football fanzine should force his resignation.

‘When the Walsall incident occurred in March 95, Dave was on bail for matters of a somewhat less than politically correct nature, and due in court shortly.’

‘ He should have stood down from positions in AFA and the fanzine when he got himself in trouble as a matter of principle in order that the political issues were not affected by the allegations lodged against him. However he couldn’t do this for fear of the truth coming out. Instead Dave chose to compromise Red Action, AFA and the fanzine rather than compromise himself’

Louise, you are entitled to believe he is innocent. I am entitled to believe that what he admitted to me face to face, at his behest, when facing conviction and a possible jail sentence, was true.

 

[LiamO]

I received this by e-mail from an 'old Comrade' today...

"i got the book on tuesday when down london - one of my very few occasions these days - glad its written, and will certainly let others know its out - sadly, but not that surprising it lacks political analysis of why fascists have appeal and there's no self-criticism, [such as why we failed to get more people involved] we won, they lost - as if."

I know it is impossible for me to read the book with anything approaching objectivity, I was wondering what other people think about the points he raised?

I should also add that there was one further line to his correspondence...


..."but i'll read it and give a more considered opinion later "

 

[trevhagl]

I received this by e-mail from an 'old Comrade' today...

"i got the book on tuesday when down london - one of my very few occasions these days - glad its written, and will certainly let others know its out - sadly, but not that surprising it lacks political analysis of why fascists have appeal and there's no self-criticism, [such as why we failed to get more people involved] we won, they lost - as if."

I know it is impossible for me to read the book with anything approaching objectivity, I was wondering what other people think about the points he raised?

I should also add that there was one further line to his correspondence...


..."but i'll read it and give a more considered opinion later "

sounds like an almost Urban level of negativity!

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

I received this by e-mail from an 'old Comrade' today...

"i got the book on tuesday when down london - one of my very few occasions these days - glad its written, and will certainly let others know its out - sadly, but not that surprising it lacks political analysis of why fascists have appeal and there's no self-criticism, [such as why we failed to get more people involved] we won, they lost - as if."

I know it is impossible for me to read the book with anything approaching objectivity, I was wondering what other people think about the points he raised?

I should also add that there was one further line to his correspondence...


..."but i'll read it and give a more considered opinion later "

Well exactly, I will be prepared to have a think about what he says in a more considered opinion!

 

[fiannanahalba]

Great book, just finished it. RA was a sound outfit.

 

[trevhagl]

looks like my eyes are in for a bit of a lashing cos the woman has hinted i'm getting it for Xmas

 

[ooermissus]

Violence only breeds more violence.

 

[LiamO]

Violence only breeds more violence.

incisive. Do expand.

 

[TopCat]

Violence only breeds more violence.

It didn't with AFA. It did though seem to breed a large amount of limping far righters.

 

[Pickman's model]

It didn't with AFA. It did though seem to breed a large amount of limping far righters.

not to mention changed trousers

 

[Pickman's model]

Violence only breeds more violence.

for example where?

 

[dennisr]

the internets says it - so it must be true

 

[ooermissus]

incisive. Do expand.

If you want to read information on Pacifism I would be more than happy to direct you.

 

[tbaldwin]

I received this by e-mail from an 'old Comrade' today...

"i got the book on tuesday when down london - one of my very few occasions these days - glad its written, and will certainly let others know its out - sadly, but not that surprising it lacks political analysis of why fascists have appeal and there's no self-criticism, [such as why we failed to get more people involved] we won, they lost - as if."

I know it is impossible for me to read the book with anything approaching objectivity, I was wondering what other people think about the points he raised?

I should also add that there was one further line to his correspondence...


..."but i'll read it and give a more considered opinion later "

All sounds about right to me. The book is well worth reading in my view. Yeah of course its a view of AFA not shared by all and not even all who made it what it was. But nobobdy could deny that the author was a central figure who was very very succesful at times in the political activity of anti fascism....A flawed character id say but aernt we all to a degree.....I will be recommending it to all my old and not so old mates....Hope it does really well and the writer ends up living in alderley edge....

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

If you want to read information on Pacifism I would be more than happy to direct you.

Why, allow me!

 

[Citizen66]

Why, allow me!

Blimey. welcome back.

 

[Louise Purbrick]

Standing by

There is mistaken assumption on a previous post that I did not know my late partner, Dave Hann, in 1994. I would like to correct this. We met shortly after I took up a lecturing post at Manchester Metropolitan University in 1993 at meeting addressed by Irish Republican speaker Una Gillsepie hosted by Manchester Troops Out movement and stewarded by members of Manchester Anti-Fascist Action.

I do have a clear recollection of the court case that has so preoccupied Dave’s critics because in occurred at time of heightened political activity through which I made the most important friendships of my life, not just with Dave but other activists and colleagues. I have also learnt, as many bereaved people do, to track back to memories to discover more details than just fleeting images.

I cannot, however, recall the exact date when Dave was arrested but I do remember the day and have a general sense of when it took place. It must have been May or June in 1994. Dave and I were not yet a couple but had formed a friendship through political discussions about Irish solidarity work and anti-fascism. I had called him and asked if he had time to talk after I had finished work. Dave was a student at Manchester Metropolitan at the time and I thought there was a good chance he would be free to give me some advice about a forthcoming Troops Out Movement demonstration. I was Press Officer for this demonstration; it was to mark the 25th anniversary of the deployment of British troops in Ireland and was due to take place in early August in London. My concerns were about security at the start of the march. We were gathering in the park adjacent to the Imperial War Museum (called something like St Geraldine’s); it wasn’t an area I knew at all well and was aware that if you can’t leave the park in safety, there is no march. London Troops Out Movement and London Anti-Fascist Action were at loggerheads and I had no idea about any possible fascist threat. I met Dave in a pub at the back of my university building and we talked until another AFA member arrived, angry because he’d had a row with his wife. I couldn’t get a word in edgeways and left for home.

I bumped into Dave in All Saints Park a few days later. I worked in the Righton Building just off the Oxford Road and on the corner of this park. I can see Dave now as he spoke to me: worn baseball cap, denim jacket over a Fred Perry style shirt, blue denim jeans, loafers. He told me he had been arrested in the early hours of the morning after meeting up with me. I was a bit taken aback, must have looked concerned, and he told me what happened: he and his friend had ended up in a pub called the Swinging Sporan, the venue of an AFA benefit and supposed to be friendly pub for anti-fascists. That night, however, it full of heavy metal fans. There had been rows about the origins of rock and roll music that had ended up in scuffles. Dave told me that he was really the worse for wear and said it was a pretty horrible night then to top it all his friend hit someone as they were walking home and they had been arrested. I recall Dave saying something like he hoped the next time we met for a drink he didn’t end up in a police cell. I asked how long he was kept. The rest of the night and into the morning, he told me, because he had refused to give a statement. Rather than make a big political fuss, he kept repeating that he was too drunk to be interviewed and he said to me that he couldn’t really say anything that would not make things worse for his friend.

Despite all the anxiety that reading false accusations against Dave has caused me, I am grateful for one thing: in all the trawling back over memories I caught hold of one that I had forgotten. The march to mark 25th anniversary of deployment of British troops in Ireland left the park next to the Imperial War Museum safely. As the Press Officer, my job was to walk up and down the sides of the march talking to photographers giving them the press release so they can get the attribution of any image they publish correct and, hopefully, the state the purpose of the march. The Broadcasting Ban was still in operation and I also had the text of contributions from Irish Republicans that had been recorded for the rally. When a TV channel (I can’t remember which one) covered the event, the text was filmed as the voices would not be broadcast. My job was done for the day and I walked away from the rally to get a look at the size of the demonstration to confirm our estimate of numbers (3,000 maybe) but in Hyde Park, where we ended up, the whole thing looked tiny. I was disappointed but I bumped into Dave and another AFA member from Manchester, they told me that they had got the tube up from the Elephant and Castle after following up some vague information that the fash, as they were called then, were gathering in pub there. Once the march left the area, they made their way to its end. I hope I thanked Dave enough at the time. I can usually rely on my politeness but from then until now I don’t think either us ever recalled our meeting in Hyde Park and the way that on that particular occasion Dave operated, as he did so many times, as a good friend and an committed activist.

So, I do stand by Dave but not as some forlorn figure from a country and western song but as an political activist as well as his partner, proud to have worked alongside him and grateful for his help.

Louise Purbrick

 

[LiamO]

No doubt somebody from Manchester will be along shortly to demolish much of your post in detail. In the meantime...

Nobody is denying Dave was a committed political activist. Unfortunately for him, and AFA, he made some bad personal choices which were at odds with his political and personal ethics. He then chose to withold information (which could have had serious political repercussions for AFA and RA) from his comrades - and misled them right up until the point he was facing jail. Then he turned to RA for help.

It is not a question of when you met Dave.... it is a question of what you knew. He chose not to tell you the full facts at the time. He was hardly likely to admit them when he was in a relationship with you, thus jeopardising the one good thing left in his life, was he? We all knew him well. Had done for years. And yet he chose to keep his arrest (and the reason for it) from his Comrades for the best part of a year. One more bad personal and political choice.

Who amongst us woud like to be judged on our worst (drink-fuelled) behaviour rather than our best? I certainly wouldn't. But Dave's behaviour - on the night in question; in keeping his 'secret' til the end; and after his bizarre (delusional almost) conclusion that because he got off thanks to a strategy (reluctantly) invented by his comrades, he was somehow 'innocent' - means that is exactly what he will be judged on


E2A - BTW Dave refered to this incident in the Swinging Sporran in 'No Retreat', did he not? I recall no mention of this arrest (which you claim was) later that same night. Funny that...

 

[Citizen66]

But he's dead. What's the point?

From an outsiders point of view, all this mud raking serves nothing but hurts those who were close to him. And of course, he isn't here to defend himself.

 

[LiamO]

But he's dead. What's the point?

From an outsiders point of view, all this mud raking serves nothing but hurts those who were close to him. And of course, he isn't here to defend himself.

I agree it serves no purpose now. I would suggest you address that question to the person who unfortunately keeps bringing him up, who also happens to be the person closest to him.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I agree it serves no purpose now. I would suggest you address that question to the person who unfortunately keeps bringing him up, who also happens to be the person closest to him.

What is Louise supposed to do? She reads Dave being attacked and is meant to just let it go?

I have known her pretty much all her adult life and she has always been consistently honest and reliable.

What she's certainly not is some sort of tragic country and western figure.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[LiamO]

What is Louise supposed to do? She reads Dave being attacked and is meant to just let it go?

I have known her pretty much all her adult life and she has always been consistently honest and reliable.

What she's certainly not is some sort of tragic country and western figure.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

With all due respect Louis, what she might do is take the trouble, as I did, to aquaint herself with the unfortunate and unwholesome truths of the matter. What she should perhaps not do is - having steadfastly refused to take the first course of action - to employ a firm of Libel lawyers to attempt to prevent the entire book (which hardly dwells on Dave or his actions) from being published - at least without her getting to 'edit' it first.

Dave afforded no such 'editing' /approval facility to those he either named or mentioned (or indeed airbrushed out) of his personal account.

I doubt neither her honesty, reliability nor consistency. I know nobody who does. But if the information on which anyone bases their opinion is flawed and false, then their opinion remains likewise .

 

[krtek a houby]

Violence only breeds more violence.

 

[Citizen66]

With all due respect Louis, what she might do is take the trouble, as I did, to aquaint herself with the unfortunate and unwholesome truths of the matter. What she should perhaps not do is - having steadfastly refused to take the first course of action - to employ a firm of Libel lawyers to attempt to prevent the entire book (which hardly dwells on Dave or his actions) from being published - at least without her getting to 'edit' it first.

Dave afforded no such 'editing' /approval facility to those he either named or mentioned (or indeed airbrushed out) of his personal account.

I doubt neither her honesty, reliability nor consistency. I know nobody who does. But if the information on which anyone bases their opinion is flawed and false, then their opinion remains likewise .

You can't libel the dead.

 

[LiamO]

Violence only breeds more violence.

Once again you pick the best of friends cry-baby

last week the defective detective-boy, this week a banned tory troll...

 

[LiamO]

You can't libel the dead.

That may be. And probably why the publishers told them where to stick their threatening letters.

But the letter I have in front of me as I type this is definitely from Carter-Ruck, who I believe are eminent firm of libel Lawyers, no?

 

[Citizen66]

That may be. And probably why the publishers told them where to stick their threatening letters.

But the letter I have in front of me as I type this is definitely from Carter-Ruck, who I believe are eminent firm of libel Lawyers, no?

Well they were either trying their luck at putting the frighteners on you or don't know the law.

 

[LiamO]

Well they were either trying their luck at putting the frighteners on you or don't know the law.

It wasn't on me it was on Freedom Press...

...and yes I think you can safely surmise it was indeed an attempt to 'put the frighteners on' which relied on the recpients being ignorant of the law and intimidated by the name Carter-Ruck.

Fortunately Freedom had a bit of backbone and a bit of gumption.

 

[Citizen66]

It wasn't on me it was on Freedom Press...

I meant 'you' as in the authors and publishers collectively.