The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
So now this is proof positive that indymedia's a secret service asset?
Its got have some use
Beating the Fascists: The authorised history of Anti-Fascist Action
- Thread starter cogg
- Start date
Its got have some use
This is written where?
Larry O'Hara
Well-Known Member
So now this is proof positive that indymedia's a secret service asset?
your usual irrelevance--certainly wouldn't accuse you of being an asset to anybody. Woof!
Larry O'Hara
Well-Known Member
Pretty clearly, those who are concerned about the full truth coming out of Searchlight/spook infiltration into AFA, especially Yorkshire.
Larry O'Hara
Well-Known Member
more irrelevance from a sad troll--shouldn't this comment be put on the drugs forum? If laptop isn't taking regular medication, he should be...
Divisive Cotton
Now I just have my toy soldiers
This quote here:
That's nonsense - he was very well respected amongst the anarchists that counted anyway.
I remember loads of people from Liverpool and elsewhere squaring up to a couple of Searchlight sellers at the Newcastle open air gig (the one where the Shamen played) and telling them that the repeated accusation in Searchlight that Malcolm was a NF agent was wrong and not to repeat the accusation again
Divisive Cotton
Now I just have my toy soldiers
Just to add why Searchlight had it in for him was that after his time as the NF Youth Organiser in east Anglia he briefed the anarchists about what went on and ignored Searchlight and they never forgave him for it
cozmikbrew
Bass case
Mmm,was a genuine question,thanks for genuine answer,i was at Newcatle,an yeah he made no secret of his ex NF activities,as someone who was an active Anti Facsist during ''The AFA years'' for want of a better term was just interested in what the passing of time had done to said rumours/allegations,ill read the book at somepoint
Nice one
Well-Known Member
the main criticism (excluding the personal stuff) is that the anarchists were left out of the story - again from people who haven't read the book. It centred on the title if anything - THE authorised history. This has been resolved.
Freedom have been contacted by anarchists (involved at the time) over concerns about the book, hopefully this too has been resolved although i imagine some of us aren't going to be invited up to leeds any time soon.
Freedom have been contacted by anarchists (involved at the time) over concerns about the book, hopefully this too has been resolved although i imagine some of us aren't going to be invited up to leeds any time soon.
Larry O'Hara
Well-Known Member
past caring
The Cathars were right
The situations are in no way comparable.
I don't know if this it's just in the Midlands (Birmingham and Notingham specifically) but I know people from RA and anarchists who were involved in AFA who still work together now. The stuff I read about on the internet about AFA, the arguments and emnity between RA and anarchists is purely confined to the internet.
past caring
The Cathars were right
I'll give you a clue - on what basis were RA's criticisms of No Retreat made? Were those criticism valid, or not?
Deareg
Well-Known Member
no i don't believe the criticisms were valid but that is not the point i was making, RA criticisms boiled down to who wrote the book, not the fact that the book was written, they slagged off the book and the authors even before the book was published, personal stuff, grudges and unproved allegations were dragged up and used to smear the authors, just as is happening with this book, true or not?
past caring
The Cathars were right
So let's take this step by step.
Wasn't one of the major issues for RA the fact that one of the authors - Steve Tilzey - was a Searchlight operative? And had been both during his time in AFA and whilst contact with Searchlight had been proscribed? And that he had passed information on AFA activities to Searchlight but had, on Searchlight instructions, either witheld or given duff information to AFA?
Now, let's assume for the moment those allegations are true (we can discuss whether they actually are true, or are likely to be, in a moment) - are these criticisms which "boil down to who wrote the book...personal stuff, grudges" or are they political?
Wasn't one of the major issues for RA the fact that one of the authors - Steve Tilzey - was a Searchlight operative? And had been both during his time in AFA and whilst contact with Searchlight had been proscribed? And that he had passed information on AFA activities to Searchlight but had, on Searchlight instructions, either witheld or given duff information to AFA?
Now, let's assume for the moment those allegations are true (we can discuss whether they actually are true, or are likely to be, in a moment) - are these criticisms which "boil down to who wrote the book...personal stuff, grudges" or are they political?
Deareg
Well-Known Member
Tilzley was in indeed working for/with searchlight, but so were red action when it suited them, no idea whether the second point in your post is true so i wont assume anything, rather i will keep an open-mind,unless you can provide proof, have you any proof? and it wasn't just about tilzley was it? just as much, if not even more vitriol was directed at Dave Hann, so i still say it was more about who wrote the book ala this latest book
past caring
The Cathars were right
Scoundrel or fool? I'll give it one last shot - though I suspect I'm wasting my breath.
Yes - everyone in AFA (RA, DAM, Class War) worked with Searchlight until the penny dropped that they were a state sponsored adjunct with their own agenda. The point about Tilzey is that he worked for Searchlight after the penny dropped, after contact with them had been proscribed and then lied about it.
Again, I'll ask - assuming the above can be proved - would objections to such actions be personal or political in character? A simple yes or no will do.
Yes - everyone in AFA (RA, DAM, Class War) worked with Searchlight until the penny dropped that they were a state sponsored adjunct with their own agenda. The point about Tilzey is that he worked for Searchlight after the penny dropped, after contact with them had been proscribed and then lied about it.
Again, I'll ask - assuming the above can be proved - would objections to such actions be personal or political in character? A simple yes or no will do.
Ian Bone gives the book a ringing endorsement on his blog which shows that the argument isn't between anarchists and RA.
Bone understands the importance of AFA and what it did.
http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2010/06/02/anti-fascist-action-the-authorised-history/
Bone understands the importance of AFA and what it did.
http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2010/06/02/anti-fascist-action-the-authorised-history/
Deareg
Well-Known Member
if the shit had of all been about tilzley then i would be inclined to have given you a straight yes, despite the fact that red action continued to associate withn searchlight long after you are admitting, if i recall correctly searchlight were declared dodgy in or around 87/88? yet weren't oshea and gable on trial together in 90? and you are deliberately ignoring the fact that just as much if not more of the animosity towards No Retreat was centered around dave hann, was this politically motivated? my arse it was, it was personal, i have already said i am not going to make assuptions about tilzley use of intelligence, so i am asking you again, have you any proof? you asked me for a simple answer and i have tried to give you one, the question i am asking you is a lot easier to answer, yes or no?
past caring
The Cathars were right
1. The Searchlight proscription was much later - September 97.
2. "By their friends shall you know them" - RA going public with the Hann story was as a direct result of his involvement with Tilzey and No Retreat. The book was undoubtedly a spoiler operation and named names. My understanding, from those involved, was that RA would have kept schtum had Hann done likewise.
Lengthy discussion of the background and Hann court case- with contributions from Tilzey and Hann themselves can be found here and here. I'm confident as to which version of events comes across as the more credible.
2. "By their friends shall you know them" - RA going public with the Hann story was as a direct result of his involvement with Tilzey and No Retreat. The book was undoubtedly a spoiler operation and named names. My understanding, from those involved, was that RA would have kept schtum had Hann done likewise.
Lengthy discussion of the background and Hann court case- with contributions from Tilzey and Hann themselves can be found here and here. I'm confident as to which version of events comes across as the more credible.
Divisive Cotton
Now I just have my toy soldiers
It's funny reading the fascist reviews of No Retreat on Amazon: http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-rev...?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addOneStar
Deareg
Well-Known Member
1. The Searchlight proscription was much later - September 97.
2. "By their friends shall you know them" - RA going public with the Hann story was as a direct result of his involvement with Tilzey and No Retreat. The book was undoubtedly a spoiler operation and named names. My understanding, from those involved, was that RA would have kept schtum had Hann done likewise.
Lengthy discussion of the background and Hann court case- with contributions from Tilzey and Hann themselves can be found here and here. I'm confident as which version of events comes across as the more credible.
searchlight were known as state assets back in the 80ies, if it took red action up until 97 to sever ties with them then shame on red action.
a spoiler for what exactly? it only named nick names and initials and as no one has ever been charged or to my knowledge even arrested on foot of anything in the book, then no harm done, and what was dave supposed to be keeping schtum about? he was found not guilty of the mugging charge and was quite happy to discuss it with anyone who asked him for details, i will ask you one last time, have you any proof for the allegations that you made about tilzleys missuse on intelligence? i can only assume that you are quite happy to continually indulge in unsubstanciated slandering of other anti fascists, i hope i am wrong in making this assumption
past caring
The Cathars were right
I know you're ability to write isn't up to much, but is your ability to read as equally poor? Or is the misunderstanding deliberate? My post referred to AFA proscribing Searchlight, not RA. There were many within my AFA branch who were resistant to the policy of Searchlight's proscription even after it had been democratically agreed and the evidence of its state involvement was there for all to see. Are you suggesting that RA should have simply ignored AFA's democratic structures and simply dictated to the wider organisation?
Perhaps no harm was done (yet), but this was no thanks to the authors. Individuals were identifiable from the nick names and initials used - certainly there were enough fash on the old RA boards able to join the dots. Did Tilzey and Hann check with any of the individuals beforehand whether they felt their identities had been concealed sufficiently? Did they fuck. When No Retreat came out, where were the cunts over on libcom who are now moaning about anarchists not being consulted on the politics of the AFA book? Were they suitably outraged and working themselves into a lather on the internet? Again, were they fuck.
The fact that someone gets a guilty is not proof that they did the thing they were accused of. Surely this is ABC for those involved in political opposition to the state? And the opposite applies - a not guilty in court doesn't mean the indivual didn't do it. Defences can be constructed, as I'm sure we're all aware.
Proof? His own admissions that he was a Searchlight operative and worked to their agenda.
Interesting comments following the review. The first post from Rasta pretty much matches my feelings and I do look forward to getting hold of this book.
Divisive Cotton
Now I just have my toy soldiers
There are some hilarious comments on that Ian Bone thread
Deareg
Well-Known Member
I know you're ability to write isn't up to much, but is your ability to read as equally poor? Or is the misunderstanding deliberate? My post referred to AFA proscribing Searchlight, not RA. There were many within my AFA branch who were resistant to the policy of Searchlight's proscription even after it had been democratically agreed and the evidence of its state involvement was there for all to see. Are you suggesting that RA should have simply ignored AFA's democratic structures and simply dictated to the wider organisation?
Perhaps no harm was done (yet), but this was no thanks to the authors. Individuals were identifiable from the nick names and initials used - certainly there were enough fash on the old RA boards able to join the dots. Did Tilzey and Hann check with any of the individuals beforehand whether they felt their identities had been concealed sufficiently? Did they fuck. When No Retreat came out, where were the cunts over on libcom who are now moaning about anarchists not being consulted on the politics of the AFA book? Were they suitably outraged and working themselves into a lather on the internet? Again, were they fuck.
The fact that someone gets a guilty is not proof that they did the thing they were accused of. Surely this is ABC for those involved in political opposition to the state? And the opposite applies - a not guilty in court doesn't mean the indivual didn't do it. Defences can be constructed, as I'm sure we're all aware.
Proof? His own admissions that he was a Searchlight operative and worked to their agenda.
before i begin this post i will apologise for not having gone to the same school as you, now, i nearly fucking pissed myself laughing at your "logic", are you really arguing that it was democratic of red action to work with people that they believed were british agents and who were passing information on anti-fascist activists on to the special branch? information that most definitely could have lead to comrades being sent to jail,
the fact that no one has ever been arrested means they put no one at risk, unlike red action continuing to work with state assets, that is if your version of events is true which i find hard to believe, but don't let the facts get in the way of a good smear campaign? i have no idea where the "cunts" on libcom were as i have no idea who any of them are,
who the fuck needs diplock courts with cunts like you on the loose? dave was tried and found not guilty, did you ever even know him? i doubt it, what about the rape allegation being thrown around about this current author? i could argue that plenty of fucking rapists never see the inside of a court, but i wont sink to your level,
i know damn well he worked for searchlight what i am asking you for is proof that he misused anti-fascist intelligence, you obviously don't have any, do you even know tilzley?
Similar threads
