Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

Larry O'Hara said:
As far as I am aware he did, and furthermore I have seen correspondence written by him in an official AFA capacity. I think we all know the facts here.
Click to expand...

Good to see Notes from the Borderlands 11 has finally appeared (were you sourcing the paper yourselves by hand from the Amazon Basin, hence the time?) and the website updated and all available in PDF format! I will be buying a paper copy also.
 
Magnus McGinty said:
Good to see Notes from the Borderlands 11 has finally appeared (were you sourcing the paper yourselves by hand from the Amazon Basin, hence the time?) and the website updated and all available in PDF format! I will be buying a paper copy also.
Click to expand...

Well, we were getting on with our lives...and I have spent a lot of time looking into the phone-hacking saga, in which the Guardian and CPS do not come out very well at all. This will be a book.
 
Larry O'Hara said:
I think we all know the facts here.
Click to expand...

The danger with a modus operandi that arrives swiftly at a conclusion without probable cause is that it then has to work backwards in order to find the evidence to justify it.
All too often plain 'facts' just get in the way of the narrative.
Probabilities, possibilities, exaggeration, improbabilities, omissions and and finally wild conjecture become the currency employed to join up the dots instead.
Basically because the conclusion of the 'investigation was arrived at first, they are then laid out as if they were self-evident.
Often the facts cited as 'integral', are not even facts.
The real value of the embellished or the gossamer thin circumstantial is to support the initial baseless suspicion.
And when stripped down that is all that is left: the baseless suspicion.
What triggered it is probably the only area of interest in the entire shabby affair.
 
Last edited:
Joe Reilly said:
The danger with a modus operandi that arrives swiftly at a conclusion without probable cause is that it then has to work backwards in order to find the evidence to justify it.
All too often plain 'facts' just get in the way of the narrative.
Probabilities, possibilities, exaggeration, improbabilities, omissions and and finally wild conjecture become the currency employed to join up the dots instead.
Basically because the conclusion of the 'investigation was arrived at first, they are then laid out as if they were self-evident.
Often the facts cited as 'integral', are not even facts.
The real value of the embellished or the gossamer thin circumstantial is to support the initial baseless suspicion.
And when stripped down that is all that is left: the baseless suspicion.
What triggered it is probably the only area of interest in the entire shabby affair.
Click to expand...

None of this answers anything I have said.

Furthermore I don't have too much of a problem with Hayes' actions anyway from his perspective he was a soldier in an unfinished war. Therefore the term suspicion doesn't apply.
 
Larry O'Hara said:
None of this answers anything I have said.

Furthermore I don't have too much of a problem with Hayes' actions anyway from his perspective he was a soldier in an unfinished war. Therefore the term suspicion doesn't apply.
Click to expand...

So posters who posed a question against your conclusions were doing so because they were "uncomfortable" about what exactly?
 
Last edited:
Larry O'Hara said:
No facts I stated have actually been refuted.
Click to expand...

There is a sort of surreal quality to the debate for this reason, because the "facts" that are produced as "integral" are so flimsy they do not even measure up to being circumstantial, much less the slam dunks they are being presented as.

That is probably why no one else has bothered to refute them.

Nevertheless let's take them one at a time.
It is claimed that Mi5 withheld the CCTV footage for a month. Now one knows why they did that. Although the legitimate operational reasons from their perspective for doing must be in double figures at least. Back to that in a minute.

It is also implied that PH repeatedly acted as an AFA rep in meetings with police re "demos etc".

But in its entire existence AFA hardly held any set piece demos that necessitated formal contact with police. The AFA march through Bethnal Green was one such occasion and to my knowledge the only time PH served as a member of any 'AFA liason team'.

So there could never have been the opportunity for "liasons" (plural) as alleged. And I have even less idea what the 'etcs', (equally integral presumably), might even refer to?

Even today exterior security cameras often offer a muddy return. Yet the footage when released was of such quality (which may have been one reason for the delay) it meant he was instantly identifiable to anyone (neighbours, work colleagues, and so on) who knew him, a little better than vaguely.

So the central notion that a few coppers who sat across the table from him almost 18 months previously were the ones in the box seat to point the finger at him is an utter fallacy. Anyone could have done that job. And 'anyone' actually did.
 
Joe Reilly said:
There is a sort of surreal quality to the debate for this reason, because the "facts" that are produced as "integral" are so flimsy they do not even measure up to being circumstantial, much less the slam dunks they are being presented as.

That is probably why no one else has bothered to refute them.

Nevertheless let's take them one at a time.
It is claimed that Mi5 withheld the CCTV footage for a month. Now one knows why they did that. Although the legitimate operational reasons from their perspective for doing must be in double figures at least. Back to that in a minute.

It is also implied that PH repeatedly acted as an AFA rep in meetings with police re "demos etc".

But in its entire existence AFA hardly held any set piece demos that necessitated formal contact with police. The AFA march through Bethnal Green was one such occasion and to my knowledge the only time PH served as a member of any 'AFA liason team'.

So there could never have been the opportunity for "liasons" (plural) as alleged. And I have even less idea what the 'etcs', (equally integral presumably), might even refer to?

Even today exterior security cameras often offer a muddy return. Yet the footage when released was of such quality (which may have been one reason for the delay) it meant he was instantly identifiable to anyone (neighbours, work colleagues, and so on) who knew him, a little better than vaguely.

So the central notion that a few coppers who sat across the table from him almost 18 months previously were the ones in the box seat to point the finger at him is an utter fallacy. Anyone could have done that job. And 'anyone' actually did.
Click to expand...

I can see we are not going to agree here, but am glad you have now conceded

1. The footage was withheld for a month

2 PH had met the police in an AFA capacity

3 when the footage was released he was instantly identified: given I have never implied it was necessarily police who recognised him, that members of the public did or may have done hardly undermines my argument

4. And yes, there are many operational reasons as to why MI5 did not want the footage released: the important fact is it wasn't released for a period but when it was he was identified.

These are four non-surreal, non-flimsy substantial facts that you have now conceded, that are at the very least not inconsistent with my original hypothesis. Thank you.
 
Well, we can now lose the AFA connection entirely because as you now admit, it was never significant. As no evidence has been produced to show their involvement we can also lose any reference to Mi5. So with those two out of the way what is left of the "original hypothesis"?

Not an awful lot.

In truth only one "important fact" is worth salvaging.

"[the cctv footage]wasn't released for a period but when it was he was identified."

And that as they say is that.
 
Joe Reilly said:
Well, we can now lose the AFA connection entirely because as you now admit, it was never significant. As no evidence has been produced to show their involvement we can also lose any reference to Mi5. So with those two out of the way what is left of the "original hypothesis"?

Not an awful lot.

In truth only one "important fact" is worth salvaging.

"[the cctv footage]wasn't released for a period but when it was he was identified."

And that as they say is that.
Click to expand...

As stated, we are not going to agree.

Even though you have admitted he was involved in AFA in an official capacity. I am not saying that Hayes was somehow acting in an AFA capacity when he was in the INLA.

And it was MI5 who suppressed the footage, so we should not lose any reference to them. Unless it is acceptable to just deny facts.

That as they say is indeed that.
 
Larry O'Hara said:
As stated, we are not going to agree.

Even though you have admitted he was involved in AFA in an official capacity. I am not saying that Hayes was somehow acting in an AFA capacity when he was in the INLA.

And it was MI5 who suppressed the footage, so we should not lose any reference to them. Unless it is acceptable to just deny facts.

That as they say is indeed that.
Click to expand...

A) you have know way of really knowing if it was suppressed, and b) if it was withheld, why it was withheld and c) and again if it was, following whose advice.

Making stuff up is just as unacceptable as denying facts.

PS the INLA was never involved.
 
Joe Reilly said:
A) you have know way of really knowing if it was suppressed, and b) if it was withheld, why it was withheld and c) and again if it was, following whose advice.

Making stuff up is just as unacceptable as denying facts.

PS the INLA was never involved.
Click to expand...

One persons withheld is another's suppressed.

This conversation has wasted enough of my time, I've got lots of evidence-based research to do. I'll not bother further: people can make up their own minds on what is what, and what is pointless sniping.
 
not sure where to put this - I think we could do with a catch all 'UK far-right thread' instead of having multiple small threads - but this is one of the biggest threads of relevance.

London art gallery putting on a load of fash/far-right stuff

SHUT DOWN LD50 GALLERY
 
Magnus McGinty said:
Join who?
Click to expand...
If you stick "shutdownL50" or "SHUT DOWN LD50 GALLERY" into google, twitter, reddit and facebook you'll see which people or groups have been sharing the call-out. The tmblr page itself doesn't seem to give an explicit description of who the authors are but looking at social media probably gives you a good clue as to who will turn up on the day.

Edit: Also if you look at the L50 gallery website itself they themselves have screen-shotted and posted up a whole load of facebook threads by the people who initially raised concerns about their stuff in the first place. It seems like the first people to realise what was going on at L50 were other art students etc at Goldsmiths. There is also a piece about it here: HorribleGIF
 
Last edited:
Marine Le Pen is the candidate to beat in the first round off the Presidential election. Yet when self-styled anti-fascists still make international headlines for doing little more than scorching a door mat at some regional FN HQ and threatened 'more attacks' - its high time to push the re-set button. This applies not just to the badly failing opposition in France but for all genuine anti-fascists across Europe.
 
Last edited:
Joe Reilly said:
Marine Le Pen is the candidate to beat in the first round off the Presidential election. Yet when self-styled anti-fascists still make international headlines for doing little more than scorching a door mat at some regional FN HQ and threatened 'more attacks' - its high time to push the re-set button. This applies not just to the badly failing opposition in France but for all genuine anti-fascists across Europe.
Click to expand...

I agree with this but it does work on the assumption that those anti-fascists aren't doing what you imply?
 
Joe Reilly said:
Marine Le Pen is the candidate to beat in the first round off the Presidential election. Yet when self-styled anti-fascists still make international headlines for doing little more than scorching a door mat at some regional FN HQ and threatened 'more attacks' - its high time to push the re-set button. This applies not just to the badly failing opposition in France but for all genuine anti-fascists across Europe.
Click to expand...
This is what you get when you have a left more concerned about laïcité and headscarves than they are about fighting fascism. :mad:
 
renton is totally 'anti-squaddism' and as contemptible as searchlight's publications that ignore militants in their revisionist history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
"Victims of grooming gangs want action"...headline today on the BBC
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
296
Views
6K
Lotte
L
tim
MPs beating people up.
2 3 4 5
Replies
139
Views
5K
Hotel Chocolate
H
Voley
What next for Ed Davey, Action Man?
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
153
Views
5K
magneze
magneze
RevolutionSound
Tory councillor accuses Dawn Butler of anti semitism on LBC
Replies
1
Views
655
GarveyLives
G
HeAthen
BBC accused of antisemitism
2 3 4
Replies
98
Views
4K
ska invita
ska invita
Back
Top Bottom