I'd agree with that. I always felt many of CW and other Anarchists in the Midlands were just as key in the organizing (along with ourselves as RA members). It was simply a case of whoever had the requisite skills for the job at hand. It was true on occasion you may have had a couple of folks who needed a metaphorical boot up the arse, but I'd like to think that when things became serious everyone mucked in together.
The Paul Stott speech (in my own opinion) is certainly "wishy washy". Perhaps removal from the more street level politics of Anti-Fascism to (in his own words) work and pursue a PhD, has given him the world view of someone who comes across as a UAF spokesperson. Like they say "perception is everything". Although I agree with some instances where he highlights the way the State creates division and tension due to its handling of minority groups, I can't help thinking that his argument that a 'No Platform' policy cannot be enforced in a serious manner is elevating so-called "internet activism" to a level it doesn't deserve.
It's true that the internet provides a double-edged sword where access to information and dissemination of propaganda is concerned. The unfolding of any political initiative will ultimately take place within our communities, and back on the streets. As anti-fascists we can attempt to counter the propaganda of fascists over the internet through either pure argument (as he suggests) or perhaps, others may claim, even through 'Anonymous' style hacking attacks. But the activities of Fascist and Far-Right groups will always need to be tackled in the strictly non-virtual arena where "reasonable debate" is not often possible, nor acceptable.
Also, his citing of the Welling case as being indicative of the so-called failure of militant Anti-Fascism is not strictly correct either. Naturally developing police surveillance techniques, tactics and resources are the things that people must be aware of and learn to counter when involved in any form of direct action or political protest. But if it's the case that advances in technology etc have given the police an edge, it's also certain that it's provided a benefit to political activists too. Of course another argument along similar lines, is that if the police choose to go high-tech then do the reverse. For instance, it's impossible to bug or track a mobile phone if nobody uses them.
