All cops are bastards defined, the coronet 5 not guilty in the slightest
- Thread starter lostexpectation
- Start date
The Black Hand
Unclean
pk said:
I have put some important points in bold...
By popular request;
Below are relevant points, I did originally intend to cut 'n paste some of what led to Dave Douglass resigning over the way I was treated, but I have decided not to cos he should really give the go ahead for it to be public knowledge. Though if you PM me and I like your track record I will send it to you... Also I haven't politically changed at all, I am still operating the same as I was before, speaking to the same people - some more than others (with 1 or 2 exceptions), though I am planning other projects too...
Context, a motion expelling me had been circulated by the National Secretary. There was no 'charge' - so I couldn't defend myself, this is pre democratic and autocratic power exerting itself - and 'we' are meant to be different from the capitalist states!!
"Class War Internal shenanigans
Otherwise entitled - Fuck the bullshitter from Norwich
or/ You will all be loving this...
"This motion is TOTALLY without constitutional foundation (it is OUT OF ORDER), and what is worse, contains no politics. Exactly what is it that I am meant to have done apart from speak the truth??? Even bourgeois law is more accurate than this 'showtrial'. There is NOTHING that the national secretary is obliged to do, and certainly not within '48 hours' as the 'motion' demands.
I ask the National Secretary to think carefully about whether I have breached ANY aims and principles of Class War as published in ANY issue of the paper, and I submit that I HAVE NOT. If your judgement contains any notion of fair play, then you must recognise this 'stunt' for what it is - a few boys playing 'lickle' political games when THERE ARE FAR BIGGER FISH TO FRY.
I want to circulate exactly the same motion about the 'member' who put forward this 'motion' about me... You (the national secretary) know who put forward the motion orginally and you have the text. You can do it you know... [in hindsight I now know it was the national secretary (at the behest of the bullshitter from Norwich and Paul) who put the motion together]
I debate openly and with anybody on any subject, and this motion is the COWARDS way of doing things, it is dishonest, without principle, and is the worst Leninist/Stalinist/Machiavellian politics I have seen within Class War (unbelieveable in an anarchist organisation).
Beating even the 'splitters' from '96.
And all this after I had chaired one of the best Class War meetings ever at Projectile on Saturday June 17th - unfucking believeable"
Class War has never had a 'no confidence' motion (so its 'out of order' constitutionally) - this motion really is a popularity contest anyway, as if anybodies going to join if they could be put on the spot like this.... I would never have believed this to be possible, and PAUL has spread it around which leads you to think his judgement is wrong (again)...
Why should people who have just joined and do not know
me, have NEVER met me, and do not know the reasons for this vote be
bothered with NONSENSE like this. A popularity vote like this WILL put
people OFF joining...
I think a popularity vote on membership is wrong per se, and as the
new constitution is not operative till everybody has seen it, and it hasn't
been circulated yet (that is if there is provision for such a motion in
the constitution which only could have been included at the March
meeting). I will campaign for the removal of such provision if it is
indeed included in the constitution.
Such as Paul Marsh who posted up on this thread FIRST about the 'internal Class War business/no confidence motion'. Then on the internal Class War boards, LYING, said that 'Attica wants a split'. This IS NOT true. In fact you could read that as 'projection', him revealing what he wants secretely and imposing that upon me....
'Anyway, what are the accusations against the eminent criminologist and fox-protector? '
But that's just it JHE - THERE ARE NONE. Unconstitutionally, authoritarianly (indeed Leninistly/Stalinistly), expediently etc. 'they' are trying it on!! It has nothing to do with an actual offence/crime/misdemeanor, and EVERYTHING to do with their political agenda. I am a libertarian in a wide sense, and their authoritarian traits dominate their personalities and approach to politics far more... In short, it is part of a wider battle/ class struggle for the soul of Class War, and as such, one I will NOT shy away from...
Originally Posted by Paul Marsh
"For the tenth time, there is no split.
One member faces a vote of no confidence.
It really is that simple."
Just a point - you are LYING yet again, you know as well as I do that it is being portrayed BY YOUR SIDE on the internal boards as being the ONLY THING that will PREVENT A split - you know by the bullshitter from Norwich
Another point - the bullshitter from Norwich bans me from the Internal CW boards and then says I am a loose cannon for "creating noise" in the outside world on the only boards I can defend myself on!!
Look Paul, you have no interest in fairness, constitutions, yours is more political machinations, and no it wasn't the full vote of the membership... It wasn't constitutional, it wasn't over if I had actually done anything wrong, it was who I was.
That is pre enlightenment NON 'justice', but hey, since when should a criminologist know more about justice than fools like you.
Dave Douglass resigned from Class War over the way I was treated - outside of the traditions of the modern working class movement (yours is pre modern bullshite - and you are going nowhere, as I said before, I on the other hand have many things to do and will do them)...
Apart from your toleration of those with prejeudices against those with mental health issues within CW (JW...) you certainly have displayed mysoginist traits against a capable woman who you showed most clearly you didn't want in CW. Now, that's embarrassing.
You really should have dealt with this better you know, that too is embarrassing. You denied a fair hearing with things like 'evidence', but hey, you've got an open problem that isn't going to go away now, a 'Class War Faction' that won't go away, and it's virtually all your own narrow minded fault.
And then you've got the stupidity to say that I am fat. Wow, is that really the best you can do? You're plainly desperate, AND foolish too...
Just a point, I could clearly see the bullshite emanating from your quarters. Do you think I tried to inject things like accountability and democracy into CW via a constitution wasn't trying to protect myself from machinations like yours? Of course it was dimwit.
You though, with the help of sloppy internal CW organisation, a stupid bloke from Donny (certainly not Dave Douglass) , and a cry baby from Norwich managed to get the anti democratic and unconstitutional 'motion' to put a gloss on your manouvres... AS I already said... You have a perspective, I have one too, mine is more in keeping with the traditions of the working class movement and with what Class War was. Yours have I have said elsewhere is impossible to define, outside any identifiable political traditions or theories, and instead is an undefined and unprincipled 'Third Way'.
Finally, it is for the best that we have parted ways, but you should have done it differently. I was at the National Conference last autumn, and there was a perfect time to have democratic accountability, with things like a charge, evidence, so people could make there minds up. But no, you preferred pre modern 'justice' with Scargillite bureaucratic bullshite. Au revoir.
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
Well, I don't understand a word of it, really, but fair play for posting your side of the sorry story.
Only goes to confirm what I've always believed about any political party though - they all would like to display a sense of solidarity and worthiness - but when all is said and done - anyone with serious political ambitions that sees him or herself fit enough to be elected leader is precisely the sort of cunt that should never lead anyone.
Their beaurocratic politico-speak is surpassed only by their absolute fucking irrelevance..
Only goes to confirm what I've always believed about any political party though - they all would like to display a sense of solidarity and worthiness - but when all is said and done - anyone with serious political ambitions that sees him or herself fit enough to be elected leader is precisely the sort of cunt that should never lead anyone.
Their beaurocratic politico-speak is surpassed only by their absolute fucking irrelevance..
The Black Hand
Unclean
pk said:Well, I don't understand a word of it, really, but fair play for posting your side of the sorry story.
Only goes to confirm what I've always believed about any political party though - they all would like to display a sense of solidarity and worthiness - but when all is said and done - anyone with serious political ambitions that sees him or herself fit enough to be elected leader is precisely the sort of cunt that should never lead anyone.
Their beaurocratic politico-speak is surpassed only by their absolute fucking irrelevance..
You know there is truth in this... Not total truth, but some.
I think you'd need to take the context they were said in. The first is probably an illustration of the point I have made on other threads about the fixation with all officers story being identically the same, leading to the practice of pooled recollections being made and written into notebooks. It is pathetic and cannot be justified. When the Courts insisted on word-for-word identical evidence or they saw it as being inconsistent and evidence of some disagreement between witnesses and, hence, acquitted the police should have resisted and told them to fucking grow up. They didn't and for years and years and years that is what cops were taught. It is still commonplace today even though (theoretically at least) the Courts take the opposite view (identical evidence = suspicious).Red Jezza said:
The second quote sounds like a (poor) attempt to explain why the officer didn't ask politely if people could move out of the way as they tried to get to whatever was attracting their attention (sounds like it was probably someone being arrested) but rather just pushed them aside without great thought for their safety or the fact they may have got injured. (Womething which sounds really bad in the cold light ofday but may, or may not have been more justifiable in the heat of the moment, acting on incomplete information).
And your final comment seems to reinforce my earlier point about the need for consistency encouraging pooled note-making - whereas the existence of inconsistences tends to confirm my point that (a) pooled notemaking is being discouraged and (b) you must expect inconsistences in genuine individual recollections of a single incident.
I think that is clear - why it was fucked up is another matter (there may have been genuine reasons like insufficient help available quickly enough or there may not).smokedout said:
And you may well be right that there was a desire to achieve convictions to try to distract attention from the fuck-up but (a) I doubt individual cops wiould have done that and (b) the CPS would have looked at the (written) evidence and decided there was enough to proceed.
The Black Hand
Unclean
detective-boy said:
Funnily enough I know what happened. The police (a van or 2, can't remember exactly) helped clear a pub with a few hundred people in it. They then started pushing people around and got a bigger fight than they bargained for, even when support turned up...
It was totally spontaneous and the police fools you had on the ground didn't know when to back off. I really appreciated them getting some stick back for a change, one of the funniest things was when a cop took a whack to the jaw that put him on the deck, and then jumped up again to try to get the bloke that did it (but failed)... The police created that incident that night, you would do well to think about that, they caused the disorder. They deserved being humiliated in court too - you reap what you sow.
Sadly it wouldn't be the first time. This sort of fuck-up is another symptom of a lack of competent and robust supervision (or, to be honest, any!) on the streets. Been a big problem since the introduction of PACE which took thousands of sergeants and stuck thenm in custody suites - no problem with that in principle, but they weren't replaced on the streets with thousands more sergeant posts created ...Attica said:
The Black Hand
Unclean
detective-boy said:Sadly it wouldn't be the first time. This sort of fuck-up is another symptom of a lack of competent and robust supervision (or, to be honest, any!) on the streets. Been a big problem since the introduction of PACE which took thousands of sergeants and stuck thenm in custody suites - no problem with that in principle, but they weren't replaced on the streets with thousands more sergeant posts created ...
Now that is a post I appreciate...
The Black Hand
Unclean
pk said:
2 points; a) He's an ex- cop i believe...
b) How does an appreciation of 1 post change anything?
Correct. But I'm not an ex-bastard. I've never been one of those - the thoughts, opinions and approaches I describe now are those which I had throughout my service.Attica said:
Jonti
what the dormouse said
There's a strong "post-modernist" or nihilist attitude among a lot of the younger folk who describe themselves as anarchists. Some of the older ones too, I guess.pk said:
But of course, from an anarchist perspective, there is nothing wrong with the ritualisation and institutionalisation of conflict. Anarchism means Neither God nor Master, not an absense of social order.
Taxamo Welf
kebagels pls
he IS the Black Hand - i don't think they get on well with each other eitherpk said:
I have hunch there may be, err, fibs told by the police sometimes but I kind of have feeling that some of the people who rant on about all coppers are bastards may not be above a bit of story telling themselves, just a hunch like....
My personal expirience is that some police officers are bastards, and so are some anarchists, no suprise there really. At least those anarchists are liars in their own time, as a hobby, I suppose that isnt as bad.
My personal expirience is that some police officers are bastards, and so are some anarchists, no suprise there really. At least those anarchists are liars in their own time, as a hobby, I suppose that isnt as bad.
NO. I''d seen some reports which didn't really give enough details. But mainly from the link in this thread where there is a detailed report of certain aspects. Comparing that against experience, much sounds far more like the evidence from different people giving their own recollections than the evidence from a group of people conspiring to give an agreed version of events. The contradictions and sometimes inappropriate comments/actions taken in the heat of the moment are exactly the sort of thing which happen (and the fact that everyone jumps on them as evidence of lying is exactly the sort of thing which encourages lying next time ...).eoin_k said:
I don't know and I never said I did. I merely commented that much (not all) gave that impression.
The Black Hand
Unclean
Zaskar said:
How many people have anarchists killed? Framed? etc None... Even talking about these groups in a similar way is stupid...
BTW My experience of the police, from being falsely accused a couple of times in my teenage years onwards, is that the police lie when they write their evidence... Funnily enough, even when I was not contesting a charge they still lied about what I said to them.
They may well, or they may not.Attica said:
But you know what your recollection of events is and you know whether you are telling the truth or lying when you explain your recollection.
They know what their recollection of events is and they know whether they are telling the truth or lying when they explain their recollection.
When you hear their recollection, you know whether it agrees with yours. It may, or it may not. If it does not they may be lying, or they may be honestly providing their recollection. Likewise, when they hear yours, they know whether or not it agrees with theirs. It may, or it may not. If it does not you may be lying, or you may be honestly providing your recollection.
We know that people see things differently, and remember things differently, and that observations and memories are changed by adrenalin, trauma, etc. So there will always (well, usually) be differences. They may be lies from one side or the other, but they may not.
The Black Hand
Unclean
detective-boy said:
Bollocks. They lie when they make it up. From my early years, before I was politicised, and events such as these are one of the resons WHY I became politicised, is that they lied in their evidence about ALL of us. We discussed it (several of us were nicked on one occasion I am thinking of), and talked about it to others down t'pub - its a common experience of the police and you are liberally deluding yourself and others by pretending otherwise...
You haven't understood the point I was making. It MAY be lies, it may not. Equally when the coppers say YOU are lying, it may be true or it may not. Recollections differ.Attica said:
I'm not saying the police never lie - there are ample examples of when it is clear cut - but just because what they say doesn't accord with your recollection doesn't mean they are lying. Lying requires some deliberate decision not to tell the truth, not simply for the account to be wrong (even if it is objectively probven to be wrong)
The Black Hand
Unclean
detective-boy said:
No, I did understand your point. The cops DO use a deliberate decision not to tell the truth. They say things that they think will get a conviction.
No, you clearly didn't. Because if you did you'd realise that you cannot possibly say what you have just posted there.Attica said:
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
Attica said:
That's a load of old bollocks, The Black Hand... does Spain 1936 ring any bells?
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SPanarchistbrigade.htm
But on topic - most of the police do routinely lie to judges to secure false convictions, and the reaction against them is to be expected, and indeed applauded.
The Black Hand
Unclean
detective-boy said:
I did understand it. I disagree though. You are not the fountain of wisdom you claim to be.
The Black Hand
Unclean
pk said:
I do apologise PK - here's me thinking that this was a discussion about Britain - not all the other countries of the world
Similar threads
