the all new 2005 who's taking a trip to holloway thread

[rich!]

sovietpop is right about the meeting length problem. Nothing can be accomplished in under an hour... these sort of meetings can be no more than showcase style events.

An hour is pretty good for presenting some stuff to some people who are there to absorb some information: for example, I went to a very good Co-op one a couple of years ago: in an hour a bunch of people passed on a lot of useful experience.

But if you want the full-and-frank-discussion, then you're pretty much guaranteed to get a few people stating their point at interminable length, thus taking up most of an hour before it even begins.

Though, that said, utilising better methods than face-to-face meetings for such long discussions will tend to reduce the impact of the interminables; use a short meeting for introductions, "we're about this and not really that", "here's the current thinking ..." or whatever.

I suppose if you were expecting to have a long meeting you could have it in the pub next door - at least, if no-one took it on themselves to - oh, wait, they did.

 

[General Ludd]

Don't agree at all, if that's supposed to be some sort of blanket statement of principle.

The only 'right' I think has any value here is that everyone affected by an action (in the sense of doing something not action in the activistism sense) should have some kind of say over it.

Acting as you will without regard for others isn't any kind of anarchism I'm interested in.

 

[Pickman's model]

jd wetherspoons aint my doorstep mate

well, bully for you!

have you ever thought of anyone else except yourself?

so people were inconvenienced as well as disturbed - shock horror, it aint like holloway roads short of pubs

and where was everyone meeting? the mother red cap? the lion? the head? or that convenient pub beside the bookfair?

it aint the first time its kicked off at the bookfair and probably wont be the last, theres no shortage of venues

which other bookfair has it kicked off at? it's not "kicked off" at any of the bookfairs i've been to in the last 14 years - the only previous police presences have been because of some fake bomb incident at the camden centre and a few plod outside conway hall, maybe a few plod outside ulu. i have a strong suspicion yr full of shit.

as ive said no-one got arrested because of what happened in the pub

lucky them! the sound system people all got away? but BECAUSE of what happened in the pub seven people got arrested in the subsequent fracas. if you can't see the cause and effect relationship you really are daft.

reading on here and indymedia this whole things been misrepresented, whilst some people in the pub were pissed off, some thought it was funny (including several staff, one of whom was dancing at one point

& how many people is this "some" who thought it was funny? as i've said - and to which you've yet to respond - the person who owned the sound system told me he thought it was a stupid idea to use it in the coronet. i've not met anyone who thought it was a good idea. a legal observer (not in the pub in a professional capacity) described it at the time as a fiasco - and i don't see many people here taking yr side.

 

[Chuck Wilson]

Anarchy for the UK?

 

[hibee]

Don't know what I want but I know how to get it
I'm going to take my shit ghetto blaster from Argos down Wetherspoons

 

[Pickman's model]

Don't know what I want but I know how to get it
I'm going to take my shit ghetto blaster from Argos down Wetherspoons

as luck would have it, there's an argos not 100 yards from the coronet...

 

[Herbert Read]

there'll be an antifa next year!?



Ps noticed a few of our yorkshire comrades being a lot less reticent outside the pub.

be careful mate, its called common sense and not throwing your liberty away.

 

[Chuck Wilson]

Out of interest what were the cutting face of civil unrest and subversion playing to the massess in Weatherspoons on the Argoso-system?

 

[Pickman's model]

Out of interest what were the cutting face of civil unrest and subversion playing to the massess in Weatherspoons on the Argoso-system?

if it was musick, it was of no discenible genre from where i was sat.

 

[hibee]

as luck would have it, there's an argos not 100 yards from the coronet...

Know it well, I used to live up that way. Always a load of Iranian guys out front selling snide fags

 

[Pickman's model]

Know it well, I used to live up that way. Always a load of Iranian guys out front selling snide fags

the sweepings from the factory floor.

 

[absinthe]

Out of interest what were the cutting face of civil unrest and subversion playing to the massess in Weatherspoons on the Argoso-system?

Whatever it was it probably played havoc with old Reg's hearing aid. Selfish fuckers.

 

[Pickman's model]

Whatever it was it probably played havoc with old Reg's hearing aid. Selfish fuckers.

it wasn't so much hearing aids as the lack of liquid inspiration which got many people's goat.

 

[Chuck Wilson]

Whatever it was it probably played havoc with old Reg's hearing aid. Selfish fuckers.

Reg?? I thought it was Charlie?

 

[Pickman's model]

Reg?? I thought it was Charlie?

that's a wicked and cruel slur on cm!

i don't think he wears a hearing aid. nor needs one, unless i'm much mistaken.

 

[charlie mowbray]

Eh? Eh? You're having some steak?

 

[charlie mowbray]

On a more serious level, Rosalie Parks died yesterday at the age of 92. She was the black woman who refused to give up her seat on a segregated bus in the Deep South of America and catalysed the civl rights movement. That's real heroism, that's real resistance, not like some anti-social numpty in the Coronet.

 

[cockneyrebel]

On a more serious level, Rosalie Parks died yesterday at the age of 92. She was the black woman who refused to give up her seat on a segregated bus in the Deep South of America and catalysed the civl rights movement. That's real heroism, that's real resistance, not like some anti-social numpty in the Coronet.

Indeed.

 

[newbie]

On a more serious level, Rosalie Parks died yesterday at the age of 92. She was the black woman who refused to give up her seat on a segregated bus in the Deep South of America and catalysed the civl rights movement. That's real heroism, that's real resistance, not like some anti-social numpty in the Coronet.

Sure history rightly records that as being significant, but at the time she was just an ordinary woman acting selfishly, without regard to the other people on the bus who presumably just wanted a stress free journey.

According to the principles outlined by General Ludd her behaviour wasn't acceptable because it inconvenienced other people without them having any sort of say over it. Whether or not history shows she had right on her side.

In that sense is an argument about a seat on a bus really that different from irritating people in a pub: none of us can be entirely sure what the historic consequences of any minor bit of misbehaviour might be?

 

[Rob Ray]

There's a difference between someone standing up to a society's ingrained racism which they've had to put up with their whole life, and a tosser putting on a stereo in a crowded pub. One is showing immense courage against overwhelming odds, the other is a tosser. See the difference?

 

[In Bloom]

Sure history rightly records that as being significant, but at the time she was just an ordinary woman acting selfishly, without regard to the other people on the bus who presumably just wanted a stress free journey.

According to the principles outlined by General Ludd her behaviour wasn't acceptable because it inconvenienced other people without them having any sort of say over it. Whether or not history shows she had right on her side.

In that sense is an argument about a seat on a bus really that different from irritating people in a pub: none of us can be entirely sure what the historic consequences of any minor bit of misbehaviour might be?

Yeah, because being treated like scum and a second class citizen is exactly the same as not being allowed to play your music in the pub, isn't it?

 

[absinthe]

Sure history rightly records that as being significant, but at the time she was just an ordinary woman acting selfishly, without regard to the other people on the bus who presumably just wanted a stress free journey.

According to the principles outlined by General Ludd her behaviour wasn't acceptable because it inconvenienced other people without them having any sort of say over it. Whether or not history shows she had right on her side.

In that sense is an argument about a seat on a bus really that different from irritating people in a pub: none of us can be entirely sure what the historic consequences of any minor bit of misbehaviour might be?

I refer you to the thread about Parks in General where your statement will be rendered incorrect. Come back and try again.

 

[rednblack]

newbie that is the worst post you have ever written

1/10

 

[Pickman's model]

Sure history rightly records that as being significant, but at the time she was just an ordinary woman acting selfishly, without regard to the other people on the bus who presumably just wanted a stress free journey.

According to the principles outlined by General Ludd her behaviour wasn't acceptable because it inconvenienced other people without them having any sort of say over it. Whether or not history shows she had right on her side.

In that sense is an argument about a seat on a bus really that different from irritating people in a pub: none of us can be entirely sure what the historic consequences of any minor bit of misbehaviour might be?

nul points

 

[newbie]

There's a difference between someone standing up to a society's ingrained racism which they've had to put up with their whole life, and a tosser putting on a stereo in a crowded pub. One is showing immense courage against overwhelming odds, the other is a tosser. See the difference?

Of course I do., but that's not the point I was making, I'm disputing with Ludd about inconveniencing others.

However, given the general slating that post has had, I'll go and read the thread in general.

 

[newbie]

Alright, and having read it I'll retract the word 'ordinary' and insert 'activist', as though that makes a difference.

My point is that what she did affected the other people on the bus, which by the principles General Ludd has set out means that the other passengers "should have some kind of say over it" because "If your 'free expression' inconviences alot of other people then you have no right to it at all."

She (rightly) exercised 'free expression' based on her own conscience and without regard to inconveniencing others. She was right to do so.


The comprison with the pub fandango was intended only to illustrate that none of us can be entirely sure what the historic consequences of any particular incident might be. I wasn't actually suggesting there was a political point to the pub incident- maybe it read like that.

 

[montevideo]

He does have a point, he is simply applying their criteria to a given situation. Generic descriptions of anti-social behaviour devoid of context, history or background is simply the radical liberals feeling smug in their class angst way.

I do wonder what the radical liberals would've done when the police arrived in that situation. Got off the bus & gone to the next pub?

To make comparisons with what happened at the bookfair with what happened in history is facile, but i think he was more highlighting the fact that their method of criticism is juvenile, inconsistent & holds little weight.

Ps Think also the stonewall riots; just a bunch of screaming queens getting uppity with the police & spoiling peoples quiet drink?

 

[catch]

Unusual to see General Ludd included in your missives monte, are you widening the radical liberal hairdresser term to include anyone with any sense now?

Taking

Generic descriptions of anti-social behaviour devoid of context, history or background

and assuming they're all equally valuable is the problem with this incident and the minority of favourable responses to it.

"If your 'free expression' inconviences alot of other people then you have no right to it at all."

Can't believe I'm arguing this, but the woman on the bus was being "inconvenienced" when she was asked to move seat. In this case, everyone else in the pub, including people you'd apparently like to work together in one big happy family, were being inconvenienced by a few twats. Just about everyone apart from you has supported the direct action property destruction that with more opportune timing might have ended the inconvenience then and there.

 

[newbie]

my fault, I shouldn't have mentioned the pub in #469

Inconvenience to RP on the bus was expected, that was the norm at the time. Her free expression inconvenienced everyone else on the bus, that was not expected and probably caused a lot of irritation. I'll bet the local bars buzzed for days afterwards with people condemning her selfish behaviour, focussing on how inconsiderate it was and how everyone else on the bus should have had some sort of say (or veto?) in whether or not she gave up her seat.

Yet pretty much the whole world is clear she was right to do so.

 

[Pickman's model]

my fault, I shouldn't have mentioned the pub in #469

Inconvenience to RP on the bus was expected, that was the norm at the time. Her free expression inconvenienced everyone else on the bus, that was not expected and probably caused a lot of irritation. I'll bet the local bars buzzed for days afterwards with people condemning her selfish behaviour, focussing on how inconsiderate it was and how everyone else on the bus should have had some sort of say (or veto?) in whether or not she gave up her seat.

Yet pretty much the whole world is clear she was right to do so.

perhaps in a few years' time the brave stand a few dissenters made in the coronet will be recognised in a similar way - their lasting memorial will be music in all wetherspoons.