Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Shayler - talk in Brixton - Wed. 2nd Nov.

editor said:
Does the Green Party head office even know about this conspiraloon-dabbling?
Click to expand...
Local parties are very independent. They are free to do what they want as long as it is within the Green Party constitution.

Lambeth Green Party are putting on a talk: The BBC have had Shaylor on their programmes. I haven't seen any GP statements - either local or national - that say "conspiralunacy" is an official policy or position.

Individual Green Party people are also free to hold their own views - again, as long as these are compatible with the constitution. If there was a problem - for example someone advocating contrary policie or coming out with offensive/racist/sexist/etc stuff - then they would be referred to the national party which would deal with it at that point.

But there is no requirement to get prior approval for local activity, or even local polices that are consistent with the broader national position. In any case this is my understanding of it - there are several other current GP members on u75 who can maybe clarify this or correct it if I have got it wrong.

edit: There is also no requirement that all Green Party people agree about everything or that they cannot hold wierd and wonderful views (again, within limits).

They won't even get thrown out for getting busted for drugs or going on 'illegal' demos. On a range of things people can "agree to disagree" - there is no robotic 'Green' production-line or army of spin-doctors forcing people to remain "on-message".
 
TeeJay said:
But there is no requirement to get prior approval for local activity, or even local polices that are consistent with the broader national position. In any case this is my understanding of it - there are several other current GP members on u75 who can maybe clarify this or correct it if I have got it wrong.
Click to expand...
Well, if they're happy with posters suggesting that the Green Party are endorsing the conspiraloonery line, that's up to them.

I still reckon it's not exactly a vote winner myself.
 
So hosting Shayler is ok for some Green Parties? An expression of independence and local integrity? Never mind that a few years ago Shayler and Machon and their buddies were enthusiastically spying on you lot, antiglobalisation activists, gm activists, greens, leftiosts, anti-nuclear activists, anarchists etc And does this mean that individual Green Parties would be free to book that other conspiraloon David Icke , re-invigorated by the support of various 9/11 loons? Or perhaps Dominic Lawson ? Or, better still, Stella Rimington on democratising the security services? Get real.

What is Shane Collins on?
 
editor said:
Well, if they're happy with posters suggesting that the Green Party are endorsing the conspiraloonery line, that's up to them.

I still reckon it's not exactly a vote winner myself.
Click to expand...
I don't understand why you are concluding that the national party are "happy" with what u75 posters are saying here. I have no idea what they think about it.

I haven't seen any evidence that the Green Party is endorsing a conspiracy theory of any kind.

I can't however speak for the personal views individual members.

(nb. I'm not even that clear what Shaylor's talk will be saying re. 9/11. My involvement on this thread is defending the idea that hosting local talks and debates is worthwhile in a general sense. Personally I would choose other topics and speakers if it was up to me - for example I would have a talk about "after Live8 - did MPH achieve anything" and would invite people from both sides to speak. But all these things ultimately come down to the individual interests of local activists.)
 
Che's hairy bot said:
So hosting Shayler is ok for some Green Parties? An expression of independence and local integrity?
Click to expand...
I am pointing out that - unlike some political parties - the Green Party isn't a centralised and authoritarian organisation with a bunch of robots reading off pre-prepared scripts. Local parties are free to do what they want - as long as it is not contrary to the Green Party constitution.

Not everyone will agree on everything or like everything.

For what it's worth Shane used to get grief about his drugs campaigning from more buttoned-up sections of the Green Party.
 
Che's hairy bot said:
So hosting Shayler is ok for some Green Parties? An expression of independence and local integrity? Never mind that a few years ago Shayler and Machon and their buddies were enthusiastically spying on you lot, antiglobalisation activists, gm activists, greens, leftiosts, anti-nuclear activists, anarchists etc And does this mean that individual Green Parties would be free to book that other conspiraloon David Icke , re-invigorated by the support of various 9/11 loons? Or perhaps Dominic Lawson ? Or, better still, Stella Rimington on democratising the security services? Get real.

What is Shane Collins on?
Click to expand...

Perhaps maybe, just maybe, Lambeth Greens are not up to speed with the official Urban Line (TM) on S + M as the pair of ex spooks should perhaps be known? I really find this whole thread ridiculous. Whilst I would not invite them to speak, and I will reserve judgement on whther the posters around Brixton advocate "conspiralunacy" (not having seen them), this thread is simply an excuse for the age old sports of "bash the Greens" and "call anyone who disagrees with you inaccurate names". :rolleyes:

Anyone who is not an avid consumer of Mr O'Hara's wares might be forgiven for accepting S+M at face value (BBC version as Teej says).

We Greens really do appreciate the concerns of anarchists and self appointed guardians of Objective Truth (TM) for our public image and credibility :p
 
greenman said:
this thread is simply an excuse for the age old sports of "bash the Greens" and "call anyone who disagrees with you inaccurate names". :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
bit over-sensitive, aintcha? i'd say the Greens - broadly speaking - get a more than fair hearing here.
 
greenman said:
this thread is simply an excuse for the age old sports of "bash the Greens" and "call anyone who disagrees with you inaccurate names".
Click to expand...
That's certainly not my motivation; quite the reverse in fact.

I'm voicing my opinion because I'm concerned about the damage this 9/11 conspira-dabbling may cause to the party.
 
TeeJay said:
The US Green Party only goes as far as mentioning these things:

...Greens charge that numerous other points went uninvestigated:

* The full extent of FBI and CIA surveillance and intelligence on the hijackers, some of whom (especially Mohammed Atta) had been closely monitored.

* Connections between the U.S., the Bush family, and Saudi Arabian officials; the Saudi ruling family's funding of terrorists (most of whom were Saudi Arabian); obstruction by the Clinton and Bush administrations of FBI investigations into Saudi ties to terrorism; connections between other U.S. allies and the hijackers, such as Pakistani Intelligence Service.

* The failure of FAA and NORAD to follow standard operating procedures in response to the 9/11 hijackings.

* The extent to which bad U.S. policy in the Middle East motivated (and continues to motivate) extremist groups like al-Qaeda, including mishandling of the Israel-Palestine crisis; attempts by the U.S. to control Middle Eastern oil resources (such as the proposed trans-Afghanistan pipeline); earlier U.S. assistance for the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, and for tyrants such as Saddam Hussein.​

(from this link: http://www.gp.org/press/pr_04_28_04.html )

I can't see any invisible planes, missiles or explosive-rigged buildings there. None of these points necessarily implies conspiracy rather than screw-ups, corruption, a fucked-up foreign policy where human lives have less value than other factors and objectives - and an attempt to shift blame after the event.
Click to expand...

So where's your problem with supporting a further inquiry then?
 
But there is a big difference between some of the Jazzz stuff on u75 and the statement by the US Green Party that I quoted in one of my posts above:

...Greens charge that numerous other points went uninvestigated:...
 
editor said:
Well, if they're happy with posters suggesting that the Green Party are endorsing the conspiraloonery line, that's up to them.

I still reckon it's not exactly a vote winner myself.
Click to expand...

The only f*ckwit suggesting this is you when you put words in other peoples' mouths. It's amazing how much time you have available to argue the toss re 9/11 but some how always have a 1000 other better things to do than put the 'counter argument' on a public platform when offered.
 
sparticus said:
It's amazing how much time you have available to argue the toss re 9/11 but some how always have a 1000 other better things to do than put the 'counter argument' on a public platform when offered.
Click to expand...
err....mebbe cos life's too damn short? :rolleyes:
 
sparticus said:
You Teejay but the editor may want to explain why he opposes a further inquiry (assuming that he does)
Click to expand...

You asked me:
"So where's your problem with supporting a further inquiry then?"

I haven't said I have a problem with a further inquiry have I?

Since you ask, I don't have any objection in theory.

However I do wonder how worthwhile it is demanding another inquiry into FBI and CIA surveillance and intelligence (these things are usually kept secret), connections with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (sections of the official report on these topics were censored).

I also don't see how an inquiry can answer the question of "The extent to ... US policy in the Middle East motivated ... extremist groups like al-Qaeda".

An official inquiry would be likely face the same legal and censorship constraints as previous ones and the more general political questions can't simply be answered by being 'neutral' and looking for evidence.

Ultimately the argument about US and UK foreign policy needs to be won politically. People who seek to change it have to win elections or at least win a higher enough percentage of the vote to influence the other parties to change their policies. The arguments need to be won through convincing analysis presented in a compelling and persuasive way.

Personally I don't think that calling for a new inquiry is actually the best way forward in achieveing this, although I don't object to people demanding answers to these questions.
 
sparticus said:
It's amazing how much time you have available to argue the toss re 9/11 but some how always have a 1000 other better things to do than put the 'counter argument' on a public platform when offered.
Click to expand...
That's correct.

I already have a "public platform" here, thanks very much, and it's read by far, far more people than some obscure conspira-gathering in Brixton.

I've absolutely zero interest in hearing the same old woefully inept 9/11 claims being being read out loud and I've zero interest in spending an evening hanging out with gullible, deluded souls swallowing laughable bollocks all night, thanks very much.
 
sparticus said:
You Teejay but the editor may want to explain why he opposes a further inquiry (assuming that he does)
Click to expand...
Be sure to point out where I might have said anything that remotely resembles the above assumption please.
 
>>And does the Green Party head office endorse this conspiraloon-dabbling?>>

Not sure how to define 'head office' here. The Green Party Executive hasn't taken an official vote on it or anything, but the general feeling amongst those who discussed it was pretty much in line with what you are saying, editor - that it is a diversion that makes Greens look like conspiracy theorists, and certainly does nothing towards advancing Green politics and getting people elected in Lambeth.

However, as always, there is also the point that local parties (within reasonable limits) are free to organise their own activities, and this certainly falls within those limits - even if a goodly number of Greens would find the whole topic distasteful. If Lambeth branch want to spend their time organising this, then that is up to them. They have already been told by at least one national body that it seems a strange use of their time, especially given the vital 2006 London local elections. But no-one is going to censor them, because (except in extreme circumstances) that isn't how the Green Party behaves.

Matt
 
sparticus said:
The only f*ckwit suggesting this is you when you put words in other peoples' mouths. It's amazing how much time you have available to argue the toss re 9/11 but some how always have a 1000 other better things to do than put the 'counter argument' on a public platform when offered.
Click to expand...

Let me tell you this, sonny. The despicable dishonest & intimidating behaviour of the 9/11 conspiraloon clique who accompanied Shayler/Machon at the Anarchist bookfair, and the organised attempted intimidation of any critics at that meeting has caused me (with a heavy heart) to resolve to take 9/11 very seriously in future, as too 7/7. When I have researched the evidence, properly, examining both sides/all sides, and come to my conclusions (rather than started off with them), if my provisional opinion that the 9/11 conspiracy theory lacks a sufficient empirical basis is then confirmed (and I say if because I have an open mind as yet), then I will, in that circumstance, be perfectly happy to take on the 9/11 types in debate. The uncritical way they have accepted a lying spook like Shayler (& Machon) into their midst will of course be a part of that critique, but not the whole of it. When my researches, and that of other NFB collective members, have been completed, you will know about it, I assure you. And I can also assure you of this--I & my comrades are not going to be intimidated by paranoid low-lives who haven't a progressive or genuinely critical bone in their body. Watch this (& similar) spaces.
 
Matt S said:
But no-one is going to censor them, because (except in extreme circumstances) that isn't how the Green Party behaves.
Click to expand...
I would have thought a quiet, "what the fuck are you lot playing at - are you trying to lose us votes OR WHAT?!!!" might have sufficed, myself.
 
Larry O'Hara said:
Let me tell you this, sonny. The despicable dishonest & intimidating behaviour of the 9/11 conspiraloon clique who accompanied Shayler/Machon at the Anarchist bookfair, and the organised attempted intimidation of any critics at that meeting has caused me (with a heavy heart) to resolve to take 9/11 very seriously in future, as too 7/7. When I have researched the evidence, properly, examining both sides/all sides, and come to my conclusions (rather than started off with them), if my provisional opinion that the 9/11 conspiracy theory lacks a sufficient empirical basis is then confirmed (and I say if because I have an open mind as yet), then I will, in that circumstance, be perfectly happy to take on the 9/11 types in debate. The uncritical way they have accepted a lying spook like Shayler (& Machon) into their midst will of course be a part of that critique, but not the whole of it. When my researches, and that of other NFB collective members, have been completed, you will know about it, I assure you. And I can also assure you of this--I & my comrades are not going to be intimidated by paranoid low-lives who haven't a progressive or genuinely critical bone in their body. Watch this (& similar) spaces.
Click to expand...
great post, but what's the NFB? :confused:
 
Matt S said:
...The Green Party Executive hasn't taken an official vote on it or anything, but the general feeling amongst those who discussed it was pretty much in line with what you are saying, editor - that it is a diversion that makes Greens look like conspiracy theorists, and certainly does nothing towards advancing Green politics and getting people elected in Lambeth...
Click to expand...
When you say "those who discussed it" - are you saying that the GP Executive was discussing tomorrow's talk in Brixton? :confused:

For what its worth, here are the results for Lambeth at the general election:

area ....................votes ................. % .......change
Dulwich & West Norwood . 2,741 ................ 6.5% ..... +1.5
Vauxhall ............... 1,705 ................ 4.6% ..... +0.2
Streatham .(shane)...... 2,245 ................ 5.5% ..... +1.1

I don't think anyone has massive grounds for complaint on that score do they?

cf:
Oxford East ............ 1,813 ................ 4.3% ..... +0.5
Oxford West & Abingdon . 2,091 ................ 4.0% ..... +1.2

Total Votes:

Total ................ 257,758 ................ 1.0% ..... +0.3%
average percentage in seats contested ......... 3.4%
average change in seats contested ........................ +0.8%

Having said that Oxford does far better in local elections and maybe Shane would be a Lambeth councillor or London Assembly member by now if he had concentrated on local issues instead of spending so much time on drugs campaigning?

Matt, are you the GP 'local party support officer' btw?
 
TeeJay, you are a statistics addict! :D

And yes, some members of the Green Party Exec did discuss it. For one thing, at least two of us post regularly on Urban75, so...:) As for election results, I certainly don't want to get into a 'my local party is better than your local party' thing - that would be silly. But it is worth pointing out that Lambeth Green Party don't do as well as maybe they should in local elections, and that 2006 is the last opportunity until 2010 to get some local councillors. So this upcoming talk is not neccesarily the most focused campaigning in the world! Lambeth are free to do whatever they want, but I would certainly rather see them focusing on local issues to get councillors elected.

Oh, and yes, I am LPS Co-ordinator now.

Matt
 
Larry O'Hara said:
Let me tell you this, sonny. The despicable dishonest & intimidating behaviour of the 9/11 conspiraloon clique who accompanied Shayler/Machon at the Anarchist bookfair, and the organised attempted intimidation of any critics at that meeting has caused me (with a heavy heart) to resolve to take 9/11 very seriously in future, as too 7/7. When I have researched the evidence, properly, examining both sides/all sides, and come to my conclusions (rather than started off with them), if my provisional opinion that the 9/11 conspiracy theory lacks a sufficient empirical basis is then confirmed (and I say if because I have an open mind as yet), then I will, in that circumstance, be perfectly happy to take on the 9/11 types in debate. The uncritical way they have accepted a lying spook like Shayler (& Machon) into their midst will of course be a part of that critique, but not the whole of it. When my researches, and that of other NFB collective members, have been completed, you will know about it, I assure you. And I can also assure you of this--I & my comrades are not going to be intimidated by paranoid low-lives who haven't a progressive or genuinely critical bone in their body. Watch this (& similar) spaces.
Click to expand...

According to Indymedia UK the goons were from an outfit called Truth911Bristol. Can anyone confirm this as correct?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
David Shayler says he's the New Messiah
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
197
Views
19K
editor
editor
S
William Rodriguez talk London Monday July 9
2 3
Replies
69
Views
7K
editor
editor
S
Has Shayler Lost the Plot?
2 3 4
Replies
114
Views
7K
smokedout
S
Back
Top Bottom