# Woman Raped at Occupy Glasgow



## Kidda (Oct 26, 2011)

This is just awful. The poor woman  

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-15462443

Anyone know if there is any truth in the story?


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Oct 26, 2011)

why would it not be true?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2011)

Kidda said:


> This is just awful. The poor woman
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-15462443
> 
> Anyone know if there is any truth in the story?


How _can_ people answer?


----------



## Kidda (Oct 26, 2011)

Jon-of-arc said:


> why would it not be true?



Why am i to assume everything i read written by journalists is true?

The Daily Mail for example is saying it was a gang rape done by a number of drunk males whilst protesters could hear the girl crying but did nothing. Am i to believe that is true?


----------



## Kidda (Oct 26, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> How _can_ people answer?


I dunno to be fair, the OP's probably just worded wrong, but innocent enough.

It was just something i've just heard and was quite shocked about.

I just thought maybe some on here might know a bit more about Occupy Glasgow and know people there who would know what was going on, rather than me just having to accept what the BBC and the Daily Mail want me to know.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2011)

Kidda said:


> Why am i to assume everything i read written by journalists is true?
> 
> The Daily Mail for example is saying it was a gang rape done by a number of drunk males whilst protesters could hear the girl crying but did nothing. Am i to believe that is true?


Your OP title and first line assumes that it's true.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Oct 26, 2011)

Kidda said:


> Why am i to assume everything i read written by journalists is true?
> 
> The Daily Mail for example is saying it was a gang rape done by a number of drunk males whilst protesters could hear the girl crying but did nothing. Am i to believe that is true?



I don't know if that's true, and it's not what you asked about initially. You asked about a straightforward, unsensational BBC article outlining the bare facts.

There certainly seems to have been a sexual assault which the police are taking seriously - that much is almost definitely true. I'm not aware that the BBC has a reputation for reporting total fictions in such matters. Whatever you may think of their editorial line, they have a reputation for fact checking.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 27, 2011)

Jon-of-arc said:


> I don't know if that's true, and it's not what you asked about initially. You asked about a straightforward, unsensational BBC article outlining the bare facts.
> 
> There certainly seems to have been a sexual assault which the police are taking seriously - that much is almost definitely true. I'm not aware that the BBC has a reputation for reporting total fictions in such matters. Whatever you may think of their editorial line, they have a reputation for fact checking.



As far as I know, it's being taken very seriously by the police. There have been a number of incidents over the past few months of this nature, and the local police take all reports of sexual assault and rape seriously, investigating accordingly.

Latest from local press:

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/police-step-up-hunt-for-protest-camp-rapists-1.1131543

Two men being sought in connection with this.

Also, protest being shut down by council (supposedly unconnected to attack):

http://breakingnews.heraldscotland.com/breaking-news/?mode=article&site=et&id=N0311471319721329293A


----------



## Superdupastupor (Oct 27, 2011)

walked past today at about 4p.m today- totally deserted, all the tents still up but not many people around. I got the sense things were winding down, although I've not got anything to compare it to.


----------



## kenny g (Oct 29, 2011)

Don't know anything about this, but it does seem a good idea for all events to have some clear policies decided on reactions to out of order behaviours. If need be I can't see what would be wrong with GA's discussing attitudes towards rape, harrassment and ways of challenging abusive behaviour. At the end of the day if people aren't willing to face up to providing sufficient security for their occupation it is hardly an occupation- it is just a bunch of tents.


----------



## love detective (Oct 29, 2011)

i get the point of what you're saying, but are you seriously suggesting there needs to be a discussion about attitudes to rape?


----------



## kenny g (Oct 29, 2011)

love detective said:


> i get the point of what you're saying, but are you seriously suggesting there needs to be a discussion about attitudes to rape?



Yes. If occupations are truly revolutionary they will need to question the dominant culture.

Reading some of the responses online to Glasgow have been eye opening. It is far better to discuss attitudes towards rape in a preventative context rather than when people are "shocked" and "depressed" that such a thing could happen.

Some people, women especially, expressed that they were not comfortable about excess drinking at St Pauls as they felt at risk- it seems that a policy has now been adopted re. drinking.

I think that it is a really good idea for a discussion to take place regarding forms of consent. There are some men who go around, in all walks of life, thinking that if a woman is blind drunk she is "fair game." I would be surprised if there weren't some men - and perhaps women- with similar attitudes at occupations. Discussing and challenging these attitudes will hopefully go some way to help prevent rape- and to help provide real support and immediate reaction if the worst does happen.

We need to show that the state can  not validly claim any kind of monopoly on  security.

edit: last two paragraphs added.


----------



## Edie (Oct 29, 2011)

You seem to think it's more shocking that it happened at a camp. But these things attract weirdos. Your sleeping in a tent in the middle of a city. It's not safe.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Oct 29, 2011)

I think you're talking rubbish. Define "weirdos".

_You are_ sleeping in a tent. Why is it that _you're_ instrinsically unsafe?


----------



## kenny g (Oct 29, 2011)

If it is an occupation then the people doing the occupation need to consider the security- it seems this is happening already to a large extent at many occupations. I am not shocked- that is why I used quotation marks.
However, people online have appeared shocked.

Having said that- it is unacceptable to just shrug one's shoulders and say "shit happens in city centres at night." The basic should be that people look out for one another. An occupation is a lot more than a space in a city if it is to mean anything.


----------



## love detective (Oct 29, 2011)

kenny g said:


> Yes. If occupations are truly revolutionary they will need to question the dominant culture.
> 
> Reading some of the responses online to Glasgow have been eye opening. It is far better to discuss attitudes towards rape in a preventative context rather than when people are "shocked" and "depressed" that such a thing could happen.
> 
> ...



yeah i appreciate what you're saying and not disagreeing with what you're getting at - but the point is there isn't really any room for discussion around the acceptability or otherwise of rape is there?

there's no discussion to be had. the disccussions shouldn't be around the attitudes towards it (do we really need to discuss whether rape is unacceptable?), they should be around the methods adopted around collective security & responsibility in general for all occupants at such events


----------



## kenny g (Oct 29, 2011)

Agree with Paulie here. Some of the comments I have read on the web have seemed to assume that as occupations are not state sanctioned anti-social behaviour (not to belittle rape as being included within that term) is to be expected. which is basically bollocks. Don't forget that the ex chief of the IMF was in front of a court for rape only a few weeks ago- and even if he was not tried it is pretty obvious that there are plenty of "wierdos" in positions of power.


----------



## love detective (Oct 29, 2011)

kenny g said:


> Some of the comments I have read on the web have seemed to assume that as occupations are not state sanctioned anti-social behaviour (not to belittle rape as being included within that term) is to be expected



I think most of us would come from the opposite point of view of this to be honest


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 29, 2011)

love detective said:


> yeah i appreciate what you're saying and not disagreeing with what you're getting at - but the point is there isn't really any room for discussion around the acceptability or otherwise of rape is there?
> 
> there's no discussion to be had. the disccussions shouldn't be around the attitudes towards it (do we really need to discuss whether rape is unacceptable?), they should be around the methods adopted around collective security & responsibility in general for all occupants at such events


You'd think, wouldn't you? But I've been reading an increasing number of pieces about the actual response to sexual assault and the gender politics involved - not just related to Glasgow (I had a fight with somebody a while back who was promoting "there are lots of hot chicks there" as a reason to go to OWS). There were some links here but they've come from a number of other places simultaneously.


----------



## kenny g (Oct 29, 2011)

love detective said:


> yeah i appreciate what you're saying and not disagreeing with what you're getting at - but the point is there isn't really any room for discussion around the acceptability or otherwise of rape is there?
> 
> there's no discussion to be had. the disccussions shouldn't be around the attitudes towards it (do we really need to discuss whether rape is unacceptable?), they should be around the methods adopted around collective security & responsibility in general for all occupants at such events



Appreciated. I don't want to have an argument about this either- I think it is too serious for that. You are right that discussing whether rape is acceptable would not go very far- I hope. . A good starting point is what rape is. YI never cease to be surprised how many different opinions there are.

I can remember in the early days of U75 there was a guy who was pissing women off at unsound events.Steelgate. Anyway, he finally came on the board and said that as he didn't believe in property he thought that if he had needs that needed satisfied he could take what he needed. To paraphrase, in the same way as a hungry man can take from a bakery so can someone not having consensual sex rape. My point is that this man really felt justified in his attitude, by discussing the matter he could be identified as a real danger to women which backed up some peeps impressions of him. I think a ban followed.


----------



## kenny g (Oct 29, 2011)

love detective said:


> I think most of us would come from the opposite point of view of this to be honest


Me too- I feel safer in any area lit by the smallest glimmer of anarchy


----------



## free spirit (Oct 30, 2011)

anyone know if they had any system of stewarding overnight up there?

if not, then this girl would appear to have paid the price for shit organisation.


----------



## q_w_e_r_t_y (Oct 30, 2011)

http://mhairi.wordpress.com/2011/10/27/de-occupy-glasgow/


----------



## XR75 (Oct 30, 2011)

Lovely place Glasgow, if it's not the neds, it's the bent council and now the stealth rapists.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 30, 2011)

I read this article the other day, seems pertinent.


----------



## Edie (Oct 30, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> I think you're talking rubbish. Define "weirdos".
> 
> _You are_ sleeping in a tent. Why is it that _you're_ instrinsically unsafe?


Any girl sleeping in a tent (which is really like sleeping rough) in the middle of a city is unsafe. Why is that rubbish, it's not even controversial.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 30, 2011)

They shouldn't have offered her a bed for the night if they weren't going to look after her.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 30, 2011)

XR75 said:


> Lovely place Glasgow, if it's not the neds, it's the bent council and now the stealth rapists.



As a Glasgow resident, I find your post quite insulting. And 'stealth rapists'?? WTF???


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Oct 30, 2011)

Edie said:


> Any girl sleeping in a tent (which is really like sleeping rough) in the middle of a city is unsafe. Why is that rubbish, it's not even controversial.


isn't it? why not? we should simply accept that a single woman is fair game for anyone? are you really saying that?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Oct 30, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> isn't it? why not? we should simply accept that a single woman is fair game for anyone? are you really saying that?


or come to that, you've actually said any woman (or "girl" as you put it) shouldn't be safe, and we should accept that?


----------



## Edie (Oct 30, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> isn't it? why not? we should simply accept that a single woman is fair game for anyone? are you really saying that?


Aint saying it's RIGHT. Just saying it's the way it is. It's a little naive to think that just cos your surrounded by a load of hippies that your safe.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 30, 2011)

A mad trot woman in Newcastle was claiming that the rape story had been "discredited" yesterday, any truth in that?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Oct 30, 2011)

Edie said:


> Aint saying it's RIGHT. Just saying it's the way it is. It's a little naive to think that just cos your surrounded by a load of hippies that your safe.


you haven't answered my question about why "wierdos" at this "camp" are more likely to rape than others. you haven't really given any credible reason why being in a tent means you should expect dangerous behaviour from others. we're all in this together etc etc.


----------



## geminisnake (Oct 30, 2011)

Edie said:


> Aint saying it's RIGHT. Just saying it's the way it is. It's a little naive to think that just cos your surrounded by a load of hippies that your safe.



I go to bike rallies on my own, sleep in my own tent, as do some of my female friends, we aren't exactly naive, we expect to be safe because that is our right as people. I'm sure women all over the world go to things on their own and expect to be safe.
There are obviously places I wouldn't feel safe on my own but that doesn't mean I should stay at home all the time does it??


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 30, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> A mad trot woman in Newcastle was claiming that the rape story had been "discredited" yesterday, any truth in that?


Can't find any basis for that so far - have checked BBC and local news sources. BBC normally report quickly when allegations shown to be unfounded, nothing of that nature so far.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 30, 2011)

It's really sad that a woman who's 6 months pregnant finds herself in a position of having to beg a bed for the night from a bunch of strangers in a fucking tent in late October tbh. That's bad enough by itself.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Oct 30, 2011)

Edie said:


> Aint saying it's RIGHT. Just saying it's the way it is. It's a little naive to think that just cos your surrounded by a load of hippies that your safe.



I would have thought "safety in numbers", myself?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 30, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> Can't find any basis for that so far - have checked BBC and local news sources. BBC normally report quickly when allegations shown to be unfounded, nothing of that nature so far.



Didn't think so, it was one of the mental Occupy Newcastle lot who believe in chemtrails and shit


----------



## Edie (Oct 30, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> you haven't answered my question about why "wierdos" at this "camp" are more likely to rape than others. you haven't really given any credible reason why being in a tent means you should expect dangerous behaviour from others. we're all in this together etc etc.


Any person sleeping rough is vulnerable. Your asleep, you have no defences and your in the middle of the city at night. Fuck that. I feel unsafe at Glastonbury ffs. It's not that the people in a camp are any more weird then the rest of the population, it's that this attracts weirdos who might be wandering about anyway. When I used to sleep down CharingX (or even if you went down the Bullpit which is now the imax at Waterloo), it was fucking full of weirdos. Now people like that will still be around London (or Glasgow) on a night. No reason they wouldn't. Yet you have young girls sleeping alone in tents. probably totally unused to sleeping rough. I just think it's naive.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 30, 2011)

weepiper said:


> It's really sad that a woman who's 6 months pregnant finds herself in a position of having to beg a bed for the night from a bunch of strangers in a fucking tent in late October tbh. That's bad enough by itself.



Had I known, I'd have put her up for a few nights, although not quite the same as occupying but at least she'd have been safe.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 30, 2011)

Jon-of-arc said:


> I would have thought "safety in numbers", myself?


Yes, if it's people you know and trust (to a certain degree), not if it's a bunch of randoms especially if they're drunk.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 30, 2011)

I may be misinterpreting what I've read but I believe the two men police are looking for in connection with the rape were known to the woman.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 30, 2011)

weepiper said:


> I may be misinterpreting what I've read but I believe the two men police are looking for in connection with the rape were known to the woman.



How known though?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Oct 30, 2011)

Edie said:


> Any person sleeping rough is vulnerable. Your asleep, you have no defences and your in the middle of the city at night. Fuck that. I feel unsafe at Glastonbury ffs. It's not that the people in a camp are any more weird then the rest of the population, it's that this attracts weirdos who might be wandering about anyway. When I used to sleep down CharingX (or even if you went down the Bullpit which is now the imax at Waterloo), it was fucking full of weirdos. Now people like that will still be around London (or Glasgow) on a night. No reason they wouldn't. Yet you have young girls sleeping alone in tents. probably totally unused to sleeping rough. I just think it's naive.


that still doesn't get to the nub of it though. if you're sleeping "rough" as you describe it, your defences are your fellow sleepers, you expect people to look out for each other. because if you don't, you'll be slaughtered. or maybe pissed on. of course there are nutters, they come in all shapes and sizes and all strata of society. you're as likely to be throttled by a euro friendly people movement expert as you are in tent city tho, in fact probably quite a lot less.

you're reaction earlier on reminded me of this

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/30/barbara-ellen-rape-trivialised?INTCMP=SRCH


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Oct 30, 2011)

weepiper said:


> I may be misinterpreting what I've read but I believe the two men police are looking for in connection with the rape were known to the woman.



I wasn't aware of that - got the impression it was a "random", from stuff mentioned earlier in the thread (or may have been early press reports).


----------



## XR75 (Oct 30, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> As a Glasgow resident,



You have my pity, for your shitty city.


----------



## tar1984 (Oct 30, 2011)

XR75 said:


> You have my pity, for your shitty city.



That's your second anti-glasgow comment, where do you live?  Have you spend any time here?


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Oct 30, 2011)

XR75 said:


> You have my pity, for your shitty city.



Good one!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 30, 2011)

It's not that somehow Occupiers cast a magic anti-rape spell. It's about their interest in and sense of responsibility to people who are there. Statements like the initial one:



> "Occupy Glasgow is shocked and deeply saddened about the alleged sexual assault on one of the individuals that have been co-inhabiting George Square with the separate Occupy Glasgow movement.
> 
> “Since October 15, Occupy Glasgow have provided free food, shelter and clothing to some individuals who had none of their own and we immensely regret any harm that may have befallen one of these individuals.
> 
> “We are fully committed to working with Strathclyde Police in their current investigation, and in continued improvements to the provision of safety to occupiers, the homeless and the general public that use George Square.



say to me

(a) "it's only alleged" - even the police agree the assault happened, but the implication here from Occupy Glasgow is not only that might have been fake, but that _sexual assault is only important as it concerns allegations_
(b) "she wasn't one of us"
(c) "we do our best for everyone who isn't one of us, as much as we can be expected to, it's a shame if something happens to them"
(d) "there are lots of people who aren't one of us here"

These are not appropriate reactions.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 30, 2011)

XR75 said:


> You have my pity, for your shitty city.


Fuck off, Glasgow isn't shitty.


----------



## Edie (Oct 30, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> that still doesn't get to the nub of it though. if you're sleeping "rough" as you describe it, your defences are your fellow sleepers, you expect people to look out for each other. because if you don't, you'll be slaughtered. or maybe pissed on. of course there are nutters, they come in all shapes and sizes and all strata of society. you're as likely to be throttled by a euro friendly people movement expert as you are in tent city tho, in fact probably quite a lot less.
> 
> you're reaction earlier on reminded me of this
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/30/barbara-ellen-rape-trivialised?INTCMP=SRCH


Sorry, for some reason this is making me feel upset. Your quite possibly right, and I'll think about what your saying and have a read. but not right now x


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 30, 2011)

The Occupiers strike me as a bit naive and clueless to be honest.I have no idea why they chose George Square as the occupy location, there's no grass to pitch tents on and being very close to one of the major train stations would have meant a lot of passing traffic. A better location, still with access to amenities such as toilets would have been Kelvingrove park.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Oct 30, 2011)

Edie said:


> Sorry, for some reason this is making me feel upset. Your quite possibly right, and I'll think about what your saying and have a read. but not right now x


sorry, didn't mean to make you feel upset. sleep tight


----------



## weepiper (Oct 30, 2011)

Jon-of-arc said:


> I wasn't aware of that - got the impression it was a "random", from stuff mentioned earlier in the thread (or may have been early press reports).



found the article I was thinking of


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 30, 2011)

XR75 said:


> You have my pity, for your shitty city.



Well, even in such a 'shitty city' you'd still stand out as an utter fucking cunt of a human being.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 30, 2011)

By the way, somebody in the comments on the post I linked to says


> Aside from all this the writer shows a deep concern for the safety of women on the site, and with that I fully agree. It has been very difficult for the women here to be heard. In fact a fair 50% of us(males) left the camp in the past day in dismay, after our sisters were ridiculed, and verbally attacked when trying to present a perfectly reasonable proposal. The aggressive atmostphere was overwhelming, and not just felt by the females in the marquee.
> 
> ...I hear (online- not the best source) that a womens encampment may be in the pipeline, and I really hope it happens. I would fully support this, given that I watched and challenged women being marginalised on a daily basis. It only took 2/3 days for us to be outnumbered by a misogynist group.
> 
> A few of the guys fell into this, a few left, but most stuck it out to try and challeege these attitudes. We were too small a group, and sadly aside fro the idealists among our number willing to stick it out and hope for the best, we could not change this.



Obviously it's a comment by an anonymous person on the net. But.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 30, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> By the way, somebody in the comments on the post I linked to says
> Obviously it's a comment by an anonymous person on the net. But.



There's some horrible comments on that blog about this ~ I was honestly quite shocked at the level of anger against feminists and the victim of this attack. Nasty stuff which made me sad


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 30, 2011)




----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 30, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> There's some horrible comments on that blog about this ~ I was honestly quite shocked at the level of anger against feminists and the victim of this attack. Nasty stuff which made me sad



Basically a possible rape leads to a mental "theoretical" conspiraloon discussion? That is fucked up.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 30, 2011)

A lot of blaming the victim going on.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Oct 30, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> By the way, somebody in the comments on the post I linked to says
> 
> Obviously it's a comment by an anonymous person on the net. But.



Yeah - there was a quote used by the blogger on the link qwerty posted, which is spot on....

_When sexist people are allowed to join and define a movement this drives women away; but, when women stay away, men, including sexist men, become the defining voices within the movement._


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Oct 30, 2011)

innit


----------



## krink (Nov 2, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> A mad trot woman in Newcastle was claiming that the rape story had been "discredited" yesterday, any truth in that?



I don't know about the rape story being discredited but there is definitely some truth in the 'mad trot woman' part of your sentence!

How did she come about the information? Maybe she was told by a passing alien in the ufo that has been guarding the occupy sites around the world. Honestly, their speculation about the credibility of the rape story does nothing but increase the misogyny in society (and it also intensifies my hatred for tin-foil hatters).


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 2, 2011)

you can't have socialism on one planet


----------



## Frances Lengel (Nov 2, 2011)

sheothebudworths said:


> Yeah - there was a quote used by the blogger on the link qwerty posted, which is spot on....
> 
> _When sexist people are allowed to join and define a movement this drives women away; but, when women stay away, men, including sexist men, become the defining voices within the movement._


 
That's bangin, that.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Nov 2, 2011)

I've heard that the police are trying to disrupt the protesters by directing their mentally ill/chronically homeless to some of the encampments.  I'm not saying that mentally ill or homeless people are automatically going to hurt them, but they'd certainly provide issues that your average student-type would be unequipped to deal with.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 2, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It's not that somehow Occupiers cast a magic anti-rape spell. It's about their interest in and sense of responsibility to people who are there. Statements like the initial one:
> 
> say to me
> 
> ...



fucking hell . With all due sympathy to the victim, it doesnt sound all that remarkable a woman could be assaulted within earshot of this outfit .


----------



## weepiper (Nov 2, 2011)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> I've heard that the police are trying to disrupt the protesters by directing their mentally ill/chronically homeless to some of the encampments. I'm not saying that mentally ill or homeless people are automatically going to hurt them, but they'd certainly provide issues that your average student-type would be unequipped to deal with.



heard where? That sounds like desperate conspiraloon attempts to dodge responsibility to me. Homeless/mentally ill people are sadly a common feature on city centre streets at nighttime, they don't need directed by the police to turn up at events like this.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 2, 2011)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> I've heard that the police are trying to disrupt the protesters by directing their mentally ill/chronically homeless to some of the encampments. I'm not saying that mentally ill or homeless people are automatically going to hurt them, but they'd certainly provide issues that your average student-type would be unequipped to deal with.



mentally ill/ homeless people tend to congregate in city centres as it is , many of them sleep or score drugs there . If you camp out in a city centre they are automatically going to be someone you'll have to interact with like it or not . I sincerely doubt its got anything to do with the filth .

As for students being unequipped to deal with these issues ,well if thats the case then these people are in no way equipped to deal  with the downfall of capitalism and they should fuck off home if theyre going to whinge about interacting with a few homeless people . Hopefully the experience might broaden their minds / widen their social outlook .


----------



## stuff_it (Nov 2, 2011)

weepiper said:


> heard where? That sounds like desperate conspiraloon attempts to dodge responsibility to me. Homeless/mentally ill people are sadly a common feature on city centre streets at nighttime, they don't need directed by the police to turn up at events like this.


And most of them are totally fucking harmless as well.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Nov 2, 2011)

weepiper said:


> heard where? That sounds like desperate conspiraloon attempts to dodge responsibility to me. Homeless/mentally ill people are sadly a common feature on city centre streets at nighttime, they don't need directed by the police to turn up at events like this.



I read it on a local occupy website.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 2, 2011)

weepiper said:


> heard where? That sounds like desperate conspiraloon attempts to dodge responsibility to me. Homeless/mentally ill people are sadly a common feature on city centre streets at nighttime, they don't need directed by the police to turn up at events like this.



for your average homeless person its an immediate opportunity to scrounge a few smokes and maybe a bit of food or drink . Plus its just something different than the nightly scene of passing clubbers. More than a few probably feel a bit safer hanging out there for a while too.


----------



## weepiper (Nov 2, 2011)

stuff_it said:


> And most of them are totally fucking harmless as well.



Innit. It smacks of 'Oh em gee, some actual _poor people_ turned up and were all inconvenient'


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 2, 2011)

stuff_it said:


> And most of them are totally fucking harmless as well.



the vast majority


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Nov 2, 2011)

stuff_it said:


> And most of them are totally fucking harmless as well.



Well, yes, they are.  I didn't say otherwise.


----------



## stuff_it (Nov 2, 2011)

There will be a lot more of them as well, with the legal move against squatting.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 2, 2011)

A lot more of them as well, generally, because of the cuts and the higher cost of living etc. There's a bloke who sells the big issue in my village.


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 2, 2011)

Few years back Militant had a few 'camp out's in George Square in Glasgow, the same place as the current protest. Both short 'hunger protests', one against the poll tax another against Youth unemployment/benefit attacks. BOTH times security was organised, support rotas were organised and adhered to. Yeah we had homeless folk and addicts turn up but they were dealt with, politely and with respect and we had no trouble at all. Fascists tried to make a few threats but never showed, the police made a few tut tuts but were by the end, especially of the latter one, more than aware that we were serious about safety.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 2, 2011)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> Well, yes, they are. I didn't say otherwise.



well you conceded they mightnt _automatically_ hurt anyone but you did say they were disruptive .

Like any gathering it sounds to me like a bit of commonsense stewarding would resolve a lot of these issues . Somehow i suspect some vegan or whatever would start giving out about hierarchies , gender quotas and possibly even militarism/fascist police tent state etc .


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Nov 2, 2011)

Casually Red said:


> well you conceded they mightnt _automatically_ hurt anyone but you did say they were disruptive .



Yes, I think its safe to say that if the cops are releasing people there who they would usually take to the "drunk tank" or jail, it might cause some issues for the protesters.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 2, 2011)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> Yes, I think its safe to say that if the cops are releasing people there who they would usually take to the "drunk tank" or jail, it might cause some issues for the protesters.



then i think its positively safe to say the protests dont pose any threat whatsoever to international capitalism in even a miniscule way  and are a complete waste of everyones time.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Nov 2, 2011)

Casually Red said:


> then i think its positively safe to say the protests dont pose any threat whatsoever to international capitalism in even a miniscule way and are a complete waste of everyones time.



It probably is, but that's no reason not to do it.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 2, 2011)

whats the reason to do it then ?


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Nov 2, 2011)

Casually Red said:


> whats the reason to do it then ?





> Hopefully_ the experience might broaden their minds / widen their social outlook_ .



... and it doesn't hurt to try. It may suprise me and change things enough to give people some breathing room.  Or, a few homeless folks will get fed for while.


----------



## albionism (Nov 3, 2011)

There were a small number of homeless people at the
Occupy Sydney camp (which will be re-occupying this Saturday!),
and they were no problem what so ever. They were given sleeping
bags and mats and just pitched in with everyone else. There was
not even a hint of aggro at Occupy Sydney, apart from the police.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 3, 2011)

does this thing have any actual fucking aim or is it like camping out in the back garden for grown ups ? a sleep over for the -apparently - like minded ?


----------



## RubyToogood (Nov 3, 2011)

From having been involved in a London protest camp many years ago I would say that yes you do get a lot of random, strange and difficult people turning up at these things, to the point where it can be difficult to keep a core working effectively together to achieve anything beyond the basic point of being there. Dealing with violence or potential violence requires people who are not only willing to risk getting involved in it but realistically able to defend themselves should it come to it. Consequently these things can descend into an entirely un-utopian joke. Which doesn't necessarily mean they're not worth doing.

I'm not sure what people think should have happened at this camp to prevent this and would be interested to know.

PS have just read this back and it sounds callous and awful. Obviously what happened was fucking terrible and all measures should be taken to prevent this kind of thing. Just - what?


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 3, 2011)

They're now moving the Occupy Glasgow camp to a new site at Kelvingrove:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-15569255

 Not that I'm claiming credit for this idea or anything (post #52)


----------



## XR75 (Nov 7, 2011)

Casually Red said:


> mentally ill/ homeless people tend to congregate in city centres as it is , many of them sleep or score drugs there . If you camp out in a city centre they are automatically going to be someone you'll have to interact with like it or not . I sincerely doubt its got anything to do with the filth .
> 
> As for students being unequipped to deal with these issues ,well if thats the case then these people are in no way equipped to deal  with the downfall of capitalism and they should fuck off home if theyre going to whinge about interacting with a few homeless people . Hopefully the experience might broaden their minds / widen their social outlook .



Since when was a protest like this care in the community,they should tell the bums to go and sleep in the nice big building beside the square.





It's bad enough you have silly feminists etc, stamping their feet because things aren't going away without the unwashed descending on them like zombies.


----------



## Superdupastupor (Nov 7, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> They're now moving the Occupy Glasgow camp to a new site at Kelvingrove:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-15569255
> 
> Not that I'm claiming credit for this idea or anything (post #52)



I walked past that, It does just seem like urbancamping now


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 7, 2011)

XR75 said:


> <snip>It's bad enough you have silly feminists etc, stamping their feet because things aren't going away without the unwashed descending on them like zombies.



What do you mean by 'silly feminists'?


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 7, 2011)

Superdupastupor said:


> I walked past that, It does just seem like urbancamping now


It's got really cold over the past couple of days, hope they're doing ok.


----------



## weepiper (Nov 7, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> What do you mean by 'silly feminists'?



uppity women who complain when men try to brush rape under the carpet, obv.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 7, 2011)

weepiper said:


> uppity women who complain when men try to brush rape under the carpet, obv.


How stupid of me to question a man in the first place


----------



## Sue (Nov 7, 2011)

weepiper said:


> uppity women who complain when men try to brush rape under the carpet, obv.



'Men-hating, uppity women,' surely...?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 7, 2011)

I am a bit uppity actually, I should get back in the kitchen tbh.


----------



## weepiper (Nov 7, 2011)

Sue said:


> 'Men-hating, uppity women,' surely...?



oh the men-hating part's implicit, I mean that's just taken as read surely.


----------



## weepiper (Nov 7, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I am a bit uppity actually, I should get back in the kitchen tbh.



knit me a sweater while you're there love.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 7, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I am a bit uppity actually, I should get back in the kitchen tbh.


Oy, where's my tea? And when are you going to do the ironing?


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 7, 2011)

weepiper said:


> knit me a sweater while you're there love.


I get called love by one of the men I work with. He's dead nice and not patronising though.


----------



## weepiper (Nov 7, 2011)

PS, I was trying soooo hard to just ignore him eg


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 7, 2011)

weepiper said:


> PS, I was trying soooo hard to just ignore him eg


I'm crap at taking a hint on t'internet, me 

Which one am I ignoring again? I'll be ignoring FM soon if I don't get my tea and ironing done.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2013)

Woman raped twice at Occupy London protest camp, court hears



> Self-declared leader of hacking collective Anonymous UK allegedly raped woman in a tent outside St Paul's cathedral


 


> A self-declared leader of the hacking collective Anonymous UK twice raped a woman at the Occupy London camp outside St Paul's cathedral in central in London, a court has heard.
> 
> Malcolm Blackman, 45, allegedly raped the woman once when she was asleep in a tent at the camp, and again a week later. On a separate occasion he forcibly put cable ties round her wrists to restrain her, the Old Bailey was told


----------



## likesfish (Apr 26, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> And most of them are totally fucking harmless as well.


 
 A tiny minority are far from fucking harmless regardless if its the addiction the mental health issues or just surviving on the street. Some people are seriously bad news and dont give a shit


----------



## stuff_it (Apr 26, 2013)

likesfish said:


> A tiny minority are far from fucking harmless regardless if its the addiction the mental health issues or just surviving on the street. Some people are seriously bad news and dont give a shit


And yet they still get elected...


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 26, 2013)

Fuck occupy.


----------



## Dan U (Apr 26, 2013)

grim

*CourtNewsUK* ‏@*CourtNewsUK*4m​Anarchist leader kept a tally of his conquests on the side of his St Paul's protest camp tent.


----------



## Random (Apr 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Woman raped twice at Occupy London protest camp, court hears


Jesus Christ. Any reaction from any anonymous spokespeople yet?

edit: a quick look on Twitter and reddit finds little. Whether this man is really connected to Anon or not, it shows deep problems with Occupy's culture.


----------



## stuff_it (Apr 26, 2013)

Random said:


> Jesus Christ. Any reaction from any anonymous spokespeople yet?
> 
> edit: a quick look on Twitter and reddit finds little. Whether this man is really connected to Anon or not, it shows deep problems with Occupy's culture.


Ok then well define 'connected with Anon'. Pretty much anyone can clam that, without really doing much of anything at all. That's sort of the point. Unless they're doing it wrong there won't be any proof of how involved or uninvolved they actually are.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 26, 2013)

The Daily Mail reported today that he's an 'anarchist leader'  

poxy morons.


----------



## stuff_it (Apr 26, 2013)

Dan U said:


> grim
> 
> *CourtNewsUK* ‏@*CourtNewsUK*
> 4m​
> Anarchist leader kept a tally of his conquests on the side of his St Paul's protest camp tent.


Oxymorons'R'Us


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> Ok then well define 'connected with Anon'. Pretty much anyone can clam that, without really doing much of anything at all. That's sort of the point. Unless they're doing it wrong there won't be any proof of how involved or uninvolved they actually are.


If that's the point then it's pretty shit and its actually harmful.


----------



## stuff_it (Apr 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> If that's the point then it's pretty shit and its actually harmful.


Sorry, are you suggesting there should be a vetted card carrying members list?


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 26, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> Sorry, are you suggesting there should be a vetted card carrying members list?


 
If you're involved in a group campaign then you need to be able to relate to the people in the group!


----------



## stuff_it (Apr 26, 2013)

<<<<Not really an anarchist, I've not paid my subscription or been listed on any of the riot league tables.


----------



## stuff_it (Apr 26, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> If you're involved in a group campaign then you need to be able to relate to the people in the group!


Sorry how does that work with an amorphous online gathering?


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 26, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> Sorry how does that work with an amorphous online gathering?


 
Exactly.


----------



## stuff_it (Apr 26, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> Exactly.




So you're saying they don't count because you can't go down to the local Anon chapter house and get a full list of members and donors?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> Sorry, are you suggesting there should be a vetted card carrying members list?


No, i'm suggesting something that encourages and enables responsibility avoiding is a bit shit and politically dangerous.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 26, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> So you're saying they don't count because you can't go down to the local Anon chapter house and get a full list of members and donors?


 
Point is that online campaigns are no substitute for actual politics - which is about how we relate to each other and find common interests.  Then when this online stuff crosses over into real life and anyone can claim any position they like, without actually being known to anyone else?  See the problem?


----------



## MillwallShoes (Apr 26, 2013)

Kidda said:


> This is just awful. The poor woman
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-15462443
> 
> Anyone know if there is any truth in the story?


fucking hell there are some sick scummy cunts out there.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> So you're saying they don't count because you can't go down to the local Anon chapter house and get a full list of members and donors?


Have you ever actually been involved in a real life group? This matrix bollocks is what this thread is about.


----------



## stuff_it (Apr 26, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> Point is that online campaigns are no substitute for actual politics - which is about how we relate to each other and find common interests. Then when this online stuff crosses over into real life and anyone can claim any position they like, without actually being known to anyone else? See the problem?


TBH the sooner n00bs learn that anyone claiming to be an 'anarchist leader' is at best a knobber and at worst a state-backed instigator the better.

In the famous words of every mum ever - 'if all yoiur mates said to jump off a cliff would you do it'? The entire point of any sort of anarchist movement is that people need to take responsibility for themselves and their actions because there are no leaders, no one to blame but yourself. 

Are you suggesting that we should ban free speech because people don't know how to take it? That people are too stupid to know that other people sometimes lie? 

*Please note that this in no way condones anyone being some dodgy abusive rapist or anything any more so than it would in any other arena of life.*


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 26, 2013)

Since when are anonymous an anarchist group?


----------



## stuff_it (Apr 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Have you ever actually been involved in a real life group? This matrix bollocks is what this thread is about.


Yes plenty, and you still get your fair share of weirdos, loons, dangerous people lingering around the edges, and would be leaders.



Citizen66 said:


> Since when are anonymous an anarchist group?


Organised on anarchist principles and lots of anarchists have been involved at various times, my point still stands.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> TBH the sooner n00bs learn that anyone claiming to be an 'anarchist leader' is at best a knobber and at worst a state-backed instigator the better.
> 
> In the famous words of every mum ever - 'if all yoiur mates said to jump off a cliff would you do it'? The entire point of any sort of anarchist movement is that people need to take responsibility for themselves and their actions because there are no leaders, no one to blame but yourself.
> 
> ...


jesus christ, and you're over 18


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 26, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> TBH the sooner n00bs learn that anyone claiming to be an 'anarchist leader' is at best a knobber and at worst a state-backed instigator the better.
> 
> In the famous words of every mum ever - 'if all yoiur mates said to jump off a cliff would you do it'? The entire point of any sort of anarchist movement is that people need to take responsibility for themselves and their actions because there are no leaders, no one to blame but yourself.
> 
> ...


 
Individualist bollocks.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 26, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> Yes plenty, and you still get your fair share of weirdos, loons, dangerous people lingering around the edges, and would be leaders.
> 
> 
> Organised on anarchist principles and lots of anarchists have been involved at various times, my point still stands.


 
Every man/woman for him/herself was it?  Or was there some sense of group identity and collective solidarity?


----------



## 8ball (Apr 26, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> Point is that online campaigns are no substitute for actual politics - which is about how we relate to each other and find common interests. Then when this online stuff crosses over into real life and anyone can claim any position they like, without actually being known to anyone else? See the problem?


 
The 'crossover' bit all happened very quickly with Occupy, easy to forget in the excitement that the moral high ground is a favoured hunting ground for many a wrong 'un.


----------



## stuff_it (Apr 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> jesus christ, and you're over 18





Blagsta said:


> Individualist bollocks.


Sorry, would you prefer some identified leaders to take the flack if it all goes wrong if you go on an action or am I missing something.



Blagsta said:


> Every man/woman for him/herself was it? Or was there some sense of group identity and collective solidarity?


Eh? No that's not what I meant as you well know.


----------



## cesare (Apr 26, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> Yes plenty, and you still get your fair share of weirdos, loons, dangerous people lingering around the edges, and would be leaders.
> 
> 
> Organised on anarchist principles and lots of anarchists have been involved at various times, my point still stands.


Go on then - describe these anarchist principles that Occupy was organised around.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> Yes plenty, and you still get your fair share of weirdos, loons, dangerous people lingering around the edges, and would be leaders.
> 
> 
> Organised on anarchist principles and lots of anarchists have been involved at various times, my point still stands.


So, some sort of structure of responsibility might be in order then - you could call it _militant responsibility_ if you like.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 26, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> Sorry, would you prefer some identified leaders to take the flack if it all goes wrong if you go on an action or am I missing something.
> 
> 
> Eh? No that's not what I meant as you well know.


 
Yes, you're missing something.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> Sorry, would you prefer some identified leaders to take the flack if it all goes wrong if you go on an action or am I missing something.
> 
> 
> Eh? No that's not what I meant as you well know.


I'd prefer, as i said, some collective way of organising things that includes an understanding of responsibility - not this thatcher-anarchism/graphic novel idea of what anarchism is that you seem to have come up with.

Look at what has sparked this off ffs


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 26, 2013)

8ball said:


> The 'crossover' bit all happened very quickly with Occupy, easy to forget in the excitement that the moral high ground is a favoured hunting ground for many a wrong 'un.


 
Then we have the situation where anons insist on keeping their masks on in meetings and hardly anyone sees a problem with this.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 26, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> Eh? No that's not what I meant as you well know.


 
Its what you appear to be advocating.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 26, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> Then we have the situation where anons insist on keeping their masks on in meetings and hardly anyone sees a problem with this.


 
Yeah exactly what if they're actually fash or some mark kennedy shit?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> Yes plenty, and you still get your fair share of weirdos, loons, dangerous people lingering around the edges, and would be leaders.
> 
> 
> Organised on anarchist principles and lots of anarchists have been involved at various times, my point still stands.


What anarchist principles is anonymous organised on?


----------



## 8ball (Apr 26, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> Then we have the situation where anons insist on keeping their masks on in meetings and hardly anyone sees a problem with this.


 
Makes you wonder whether they missed the "definition of 'meeting' " meeting.

But then anyone could claim to have not been there with perfect plausibility.


----------



## stuff_it (Apr 26, 2013)

cesare said:


> Go on then - describe these anarchist principles that Occupy was organised around.


I was never really that involved with Occupy, but it seems though that there are/were a lot of younger/less experienced people that are still caught in the leader trap. 



butchersapron said:


> So, some sort of structure of responsibility might be in order - you could call it _militant responsibility_ if you like.


That's not what I was saying, I said that people are responsible for whether they believe other people wholeheartedly or take it with a pinch of salt. I never said that there was no collective responsibility but at the end of the day if someone tries to appoint themselves leader and suggests that everyone goes and does something silly or counterproductive that people at the end of the day have to make an effort to use their critical thinking skills about what that might entail, both collectively and individually.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Yeah exactly what if they're actually fash or some mark kennedy shit?


They're the ones most likely to be advocating this responsibility free apolitical comic-book fantasy of anarchism - masks off though.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 26, 2013)

stuff_it said:
			
		

> Organised on anarchist principles and lots of anarchists have been involved at various times, my point still stands.



Which anarchist principles specifically?


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 26, 2013)

cesare said:
			
		

> Go on then - describe these anarchist principles that Occupy was organised around.



Beaten to it oops.


----------



## stuff_it (Apr 26, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> Which anarchist principles specifically?


There aren't any leaders or followers, for example (except in the social sense that you often get in large groups of younguns).


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> That's not what I was saying, I said that people are responsible for whether they believe other people wholeheartedly or take it with a pinch of salt. I never said that there was no collective responsibility but at the end of the day if someone tries to appoint themselves leader and suggests that everyone goes and does something silly or counterproductive that people at the end of the day have to make an effort to use their critical thinking skills about what that might entail, both collectively and individually.


 
This means nothing really. You have defended a lack of structure because it allows people to do things whilst minimising potential comeback. _This is the problem. _It's not a good thing as a general organising principle - for specific limited action sure, but not as your default mode of operation or you end uo with teenage comic book shit and bad bad consequences for the vulnerable and an opening for anti-social and dangerous parasites.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 26, 2013)

If I'm at a public meeting where potentially delicate things are being discussed and views are being aired which the government would definitely not be happy about i would like to be able to see who i am talking to. 

sorry.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2013)

It was anonymous that stuff_it describe as being based on anarchist principles, not occupy. I'd be interested to hear what these principles are.


----------



## stuff_it (Apr 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This means nothing really. You have defended a lack of structure because it allows people to do things whilst minimising potential comeback. _This is the problem. _It's not a good thing as a general organising principle - for specific limited action sure, but not as your default mode of operation or you end uo with teenage comic book shit and bad bad consequences for the vulnerable and an opening for anti-social and dangerous parasites.


But that happens IRL as well... I can think of several I've met over the years.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 26, 2013)

stuff_it said:
			
		

> There aren't any leaders or followers, for example (except in the social sense that you often get in large groups of younguns).



Thats it? lol


----------



## stuff_it (Apr 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It was anonymous that stuff_it describe as being based on anarchist principles, not occupy. I'd be interested to hear what these principles are.


 
Organised along anarchist principles, I already answered.



Citizen66 said:


> Thats it? lol


Well anyone is free to suggest anything, or set up their own op or whatever from what I know. 
Organisationally anarchist, and yes I agree it may not be the best way to go about things but certainly as a veteran of road protests and various meatspace actions etc over they years it's not like the same issues don't arise in real life as well.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> But that happens IRL as well... I can think of several I've met over the years.


What sort of response is that? It happens in real life so we must not take steps to ensure it doesn't happen in how we organise? Seriously?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> Organised along anarchist principles, I already answered.


No you didn't. You signally failed to answer.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2013)

Behold the coming society:


----------



## stuff_it (Apr 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What sort of response is that? It happens in real life so we must not take steps to ensure it doesn't happen in how we organise? Seriously?


I didn't say that, I said that there is no way to prevent wronguns from getting onvolved no matter what the platform and that both individually and collectively people need to take responsibility for themselves as the other option is having some sort of fully vetted leadership. Clearly having recognised leaders for an action of any sort is a *bad idea *and has been proved so many times.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 26, 2013)

anonymous was started by 4chan anyway, hardly a fuckin haven of left-wing views.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 26, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> I didn't say that, I said that there is no way to prevent wronguns from getting onvolved no matter what the platform and that both individually and collectively people need to take responsibility for themselves as the other option is having some sort of fully vetted leadership. Clearly having recognised leaders for an action of any sort is a *bad idea *and has been proved so many times.


Anarchism doesn't mean no organisation or no structure.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 26, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> Thats it? lol


 
There was that as well as a decent DIY ethic going on in some places, an emphasis on consensus - bits and bobs that sort of looked 'anarchisty' - but the thing that stuck in my craw was that their main aim as articulated to me (when I'd found a non-loon) was to 'get the Government to do something about it', which I think disqualifies them from the outset.


----------



## stuff_it (Apr 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Behold the coming society:


^^^This is what happens if more experienced people don't ever engage with the younger and less experienced. 

And yeah sorry, but the people who are kids now will eventually be adults. That's more to do with physics and the linear perception of time. Not much we can do about that. *shrug*


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> I didn't say that, I said that there is no way to prevent wronguns from getting onvolved no matter what the platform and that both individually and collectively people need to take responsibility for themselves as the other option is having some sort of fully vetted leadership. Clearly having recognised leaders for an action of any sort is a *bad idea *and has been proved so many times.


No that is not the only other option - anarchist groups, real ones - have come up with many ways to ensure that no-one acts in their name without the express consent of the members. That's actually a key part of what anarchism is. And you continue to confuse organising for a specific action with general organising.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> Anarchism doesn't mean no organisation or no structure.


Anarchism means organisation and structure.  That's what it is.


----------



## stuff_it (Apr 26, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> Anarchism doesn't mean no organisation or no structure.


Self evolving structure, self policed.

I'm sure that most people on Occupy Glasgow will have been suitably shocked and angry about this rape and chances are the bloke should be counting his lucky starts that the police got to him first.



butchersapron said:


> No that is not the only other option - anarchist groups, real ones - have come up with many ways to ensure that no-one acts in their name without the express consent of the members. That's actually a key part of what anarchism is. And you continue to confuse organising for a specific action with general organising.


Yes but unless there is a lot of consensus any sort of mass action will fall flat on it's face anyway.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Anarchism means organisation and structure. That's what it is.


 
Bit of a stretch.  Mr _<Godwin-breaking text omitted>_ was a big fan of organisation and structure.  I think Blagsta puts it better.


----------



## stuff_it (Apr 26, 2013)

I agree that there are problems with self policing such a large and disparate group (either Anon or Occupy), certainly in the road protest movement there was scope for wronguns to shift around different camps and squats and go undetected for some time (eg a child abuser, or the guy who jumped out of his exes living room floor with an axe).


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> Self evolving structure, self policed.
> 
> I'm sure that most people on Occupy Glasgow will have been suitably shocked and angry about this rape and chances are the bloke should be counting his lucky starts that the police got to him first.
> 
> ...


 
This thread has been bumped because of this:



> Self-declared leader of hacking collective Anonymous UK allegedly raped woman in a tent outside St Paul's cathedral


 
You, again, confuse principles of organising a specific action with a limited aim with general organising, and membership groups. These are all different things and to employ the preferred method for one initiative to another is to invite what i posted above. This is basic basic stuff.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2013)

8ball said:


> Bit of a stretch. Mr _<Godwin-breaking text omitted>_ was a big fan of organisation and structure. I think Blagsta puts it better.


How does other people being in favour of organisation and structure mean that anarchists aren't?


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 26, 2013)

stuff_it said:
			
		

> Self evolving structure, self policed.



Anarchists don't 'police'.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> How does other people being in favour of organisation and structure mean that anarchists aren't?


 
Going back to your actual wording - if anarchism _means_ organisation and structure then where there is order and structure, there is anarchism. Though on a second reading, perhaps you didn't mean _means_ in quite the defining manner in which I read it...

In any case - there's some ambiguity there


----------



## stuff_it (Apr 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This thread has been bumped because of this:
> 
> 
> 
> You again, confuse principles of organising a specific action with a limited aim with general organising, and membership groups. These are all different things and to employ the preferred method on one initiative to another is to invite what i posted above. This is basic basic stuff.


Again please note my comment that unfortunately there will always be people trying to self-proclaim this and that and as you get older and more experienced the alarm bells that this can ring only get louder.


----------



## stuff_it (Apr 26, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> Anarchists don't 'police'.


Why do you equate self-policing to 'being the police'?


----------



## cesare (Apr 26, 2013)

Stuff_it, what you're describing sounds more like anarchy than anarchism.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> Again please note my comment that unfortunately there will always be people trying to self-proclaim this and that and as you get older and more experienced the alarm bells that this can ring only get louder.


These alarm bells, do they lead to questions about how organising should take place, how to manage responsibility beyond individualist measures?


----------



## Casually Red (Apr 26, 2013)

kenny g said:


> Yes. If occupations are truly revolutionary they will need to question the dominant culture.
> 
> .


 
no offence squire but you dont need to be even remotely revolutionary to have a major problem with rape . And in the dominant mainstream conservative culture its regarded as a very serious criminal offence .


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 26, 2013)

stuff_it said:
			
		

> Why do you equate self-policing to 'being the police'?



I didn't.


----------



## stuff_it (Apr 26, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> I didn't.


Erm...


Citizen66 said:


> Anarchists don't 'police'.


 


cesare said:


> Stuff_it, what you're describing sounds more like anarchy than anarchism.


No, but it is an example of why people imagine an anarchist society to involve a network of smaller groups - otherwise it would be a bit Mad Max at least some of the time. Any large grouping of people will tend towards actual anarchy, esp if it's full of teenagers. 

Personally I'd like people to feel free to self proclaim themselves as leaders of this and that leaderless organisation so I know to steer clear of them. Other methods are equally acceptable, including them getting a comedy penis tattooed on their forehead as a warning to others or anything else they might choose to use to warn others off.


----------



## cesare (Apr 26, 2013)

All you're doing is further describing why this wasn't - as you originally stated - organised on anarchist principles.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 26, 2013)

> Personally I'd like people to feel free to self proclaim themselves as leaders of this and that leaderless organisation so I know *to steer clear of them.*


 
Pretty much what most people did with regard Malcolm at Occupy London.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 26, 2013)

cesare said:


> All you're doing is further describing why this wasn't - as you originally stated - organised on anarchist principles.


 
If we can all agree that Occupy eschewed clearly-defined leaders and traditional hierarchical political organisation, as well as having some other definite superficial resemblances to _some instances_ of anarchist organisation, we might be able to get past the roadblock. 

Fuck, I'm turning into a 'facilitator' -  at self..


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 26, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> Again please note my comment that unfortunately there will always be people trying to self-proclaim this and that and as you get older and more experienced the alarm bells that this can ring only get louder.


Doesn't this smack a little of victim blaming?


----------



## treelover (Apr 26, 2013)

Apparently, there is a big protest in Trafalgar Sq(May 4th The 99% against austerity) lots of anon say they are going, the media will be all over it...


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 26, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> I'm sure that most people on Occupy Glasgow will have been suitably shocked and angry about this rape and chances are the bloke should be counting his lucky starts that the police got to him first.


judging by other incidents in the movement over the last couple of years an accountability group would have been set up, some effete and ineffectual liberal load of toss which does nothing to remedy the situation.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 26, 2013)

treelover said:


> Apparently, there is a big protest in Trafalgar Sq(May 4th The 99% against austerity) lots of anon say they are going, the media will be all over it...


I'm already over it


----------



## treelover (Apr 26, 2013)

What is this Blackburn guy's background?, its seems the same old story, I can spot these guys a mile off and have, why can't these groupings?


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 26, 2013)

stuff_it said:
			
		

> Erm...



I meant it in the same context that you meant it. The verb, not the constabulary. Anarchists aren't policed by anarchists.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 26, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> Doesn't this smack a little of victim blaming?


 
People who are more vulnerable are more likely to be attacked - I don't think that means the blame is in any sense on the victim.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 26, 2013)

8ball said:


> People who are more vulnerable are more likely to be attacked - I don't think that means the blame is in any sense on the victim.


Just seemed a little like "you should know better than to get involved with someone like that".


----------



## tufty79 (Apr 26, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> Just seemed a little like "you should know better than to get involved with someone like that".


i didn't read it that way.


----------



## treelover (Apr 26, 2013)

Time to start throwing these predators out of any movement they are in, zero tolerance, it was there in the rave scene as well


----------



## MillwallShoes (Apr 26, 2013)

treelover said:


> Time to start throwing these predators out of any movement they are in, zero tolerance, it was there in the rave scene as well


and, eh, into jail?


----------



## cesare (Apr 26, 2013)

treelover said:


> Time to start throwing these predators out of any movement they are in, zero tolerance, it was there in the rave scene as well


Yep avoidance tactics on an individual basis don't work.


----------



## cesare (Apr 26, 2013)

MillwallShoes said:


> and, eh, into jail?


Just out of the camp before they actually do something jail worthy.


----------



## MillwallShoes (Apr 26, 2013)

a sexual predetor needs locking away not just "throwing out of a scene"!!!! unless i'm missing something here?


----------



## tufty79 (Apr 26, 2013)

not from the 'activist' scene, but sort of relevant..
http://pervocracy.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/missing-stair.html

edit: the problem with 'dealing with it within/as a community' is that .. well.. the community in question ain't the only community in the world, is it. and it's even more 'er..' if it's an insular community. they can easily just move onto the next one, or work outside of the one that's 'dealing with' them.. and no, i don't know what the answer is.


----------



## MillwallShoes (Apr 26, 2013)

cesare said:


> Just out of the camp before they actually do something jail worthy.


i see.

anyone caught doing something needs arresting, as i am sure you'd agree!!!


----------



## cesare (Apr 26, 2013)

MillwallShoes said:


> a sexual predetor needs locking away not just "throwing out of a scene"!!!! unless i'm missing something here?



The point is not to wait and/or create the environment where they can actually carry out an attack.


----------



## MillwallShoes (Apr 26, 2013)

cesare said:


> The point is not to wait and/or create the environment where they can actually carry out an attack.


with you. i thought we were talking about those that had actually committed offenses.


----------



## cesare (Apr 26, 2013)

MillwallShoes said:


> i see.
> 
> anyone caught doing something needs arresting, as i am sure you'd agree!!!


Yes. But previous posters were talking about spotting the type and avoiding them, rather than hoying them out before they had a chance to do any damage.

Ok, just seen your previous post


----------



## 8ball (Apr 26, 2013)

tufty79 said:


> not from the 'activist' scene, but sort of relevant..
> http://pervocracy.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/missing-stair.html


 
It's very good, and definitely relevant.


----------



## cesare (Apr 26, 2013)

tufty79 said:


> not from the 'activist' scene, but sort of relevant..
> http://pervocracy.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/missing-stair.html
> 
> edit: the problem with 'dealing with it within/as a community' is that .. well.. the community in question ain't the only community in the world, is it. and it's even more 'er..' if it's an insular community. they can easily just move onto the next one, or work outside of the one that's 'dealing with' them.. and no, i don't know what the answer is.


It's very definitely relevant. Yes, there needs to be some responsibility for the communities that you're expelling them into, if that's what you mean (using the example we're discussing atm). Public warning is what some groups have used.

Edit: for example this one http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/tout-warning.298680/


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 26, 2013)

tufty79 said:


> i didn't read it that way.


Fairynuff


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 26, 2013)

treelover said:


> Time to start throwing these predators out of any movement they are in, zero tolerance, it was there in the rave scene as well


 

IME OL tied itself in impossible knots over how to deal with individuals who had no regard for the 'safer spaces' policy it agreed on. Numerous vids of GA's are available online of how they tried and failed to used consensus decision making to structure and implement those agreements. There was intimidation, violence and more at the camp. Some people were banned from the camps although enforcing that ban was the thing that posed most challenging as there just wasn't the kind of unity/necessary number of peeps volunteering to step up and enforce it. As a result many, many people burnt out/left/returned to their own lives/communities to continue the kind of activism that they are most drawn/connected to. There was a reluctance to call the police ever, although it did happen.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Apr 26, 2013)

Rutita1 said:


> IME OL tied itself in impossible knots over how to deal with individuals who had no regard for the 'safer spaces' policy it agreed on. Numerous vids of GA's are available online of how they tried and failed to used consensus decision making to structure and implement those agreements. There was intimidation, violence and more at the camp. Some people were banned from the camps although enforcing that ban was the thing that posed most challenging as there just wasn't the kind of unity/necessary number of peeps volunteering to step up and enforce it. As a result many, many people burnt out/left/returned to their own lives/communities to continue the kind of activism that they are most drawn/connected to. There was a reluctance to call the police ever, although it did happen.


 
this is exactly my opinion and experience too.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Apr 26, 2013)

also, on the two occasions that we had to call the police into the camp to help us evict troublemakers, on both occasions the police refused to get involved.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 26, 2013)

treelover said:


> Apparently, there is a big protest in Trafalgar Sq(May 4th The 99% against austerity) lots of anon say they are going, the media will be all over it...








apparently it's 12pm gmt. so it's presumably1pm bst.

i suppose they're hoping not everyone turns up as trafalgar square's not really all that big.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 26, 2013)

Rutita1 said:


> IME OL tied itself in impossible knots over how to deal with individuals who had no regard for the 'safer spaces' policy it agreed on. Numerous vids of GA's are available online of how they tried and failed to used consensus decision making to structure and implement those agreements. There was intimidation, violence and more at the camp. Some people were banned from the camps although enforcing that ban was the thing that posed most challenging as there just wasn't the kind of unity/necessary number of peeps volunteering to step up and enforce it. As a result many, many people burnt out/left/returned to their own lives/communities to continue the kind of activism that they are most drawn/connected to. There was a reluctance to call the police ever, although it did happen.


that's kinda my view too.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 28, 2013)

Rutita1 said:


> IME OL tied itself in impossible knots over how to deal with individuals who had no regard for the 'safer spaces' policy it agreed on. Numerous vids of GA's are available online of how they tried and failed to used consensus decision making to structure and implement those agreements. There was intimidation, violence and more at the camp. Some people were banned from the camps although enforcing that ban was the thing that posed most challenging as there just wasn't the kind of unity/necessary number of peeps volunteering to step up and enforce it. As a result many, many people burnt out/left/returned to their own lives/communities to continue the kind of activism that they are most drawn/connected to. There was a reluctance to call the police ever, although it did happen.


 
I saw a fair few people on here taking the piss out of the idea of the 'tranquility team' that dissent had at the G8 camp, and I think the climate camps carried on with afterwards, but your post shows why such teams are necessary, although the name might be a bit worthy of piss takes.

The teams operated 24 hours a day with 2 members of each neighbourhood being part of the team each shift IIRC doing 6 hour shifts, so there was always an inclusive sober team from all areas of the camps empowered by the camp to keep an eye on the camp, calm situations down, and if necessary to either kick someone out, or mostly take them back to their neighborhood / camp area for their mates to sort them out if they'd just drunk too much etc.

Though at the G8 camp, mostly what the team actually ended up doing was keeping up a 24 hour watch on all the entrance points to the camp to keep the police out / raise the alarm if they started coming in to the camp, but that was the principle behind it.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 29, 2013)

There were 'tranquility' teams at the Occupy camps in London...sometimes they worked, sometimes they didn't because:

People got drunk.
People suddenly turned into arseholes once they got a radio in their hand... (no joke)
Not enough people volunteered for the night shift meaning some people ended up doing too much/getting burnt out.
Some other camp members seemed to get a kick out of challenging the 'tranquility team' on EVERYTHING in some kind of acting out of anti-authority psycho-dramas.


----------



## muscovyduck (Apr 30, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> I didn't say that, I said that there is no way to prevent wronguns from getting onvolved no matter what the platform and that both individually and collectively people need to take responsibility for themselves as the other option is having some sort of fully vetted leadership. Clearly having recognised leaders for an action of any sort is a *bad idea *and has been proved so many times.


 
Just to clarify, what do you mean by take responsibility for themselves? How can a large group collectively look after the safety of everyone without organisational structures? If no leadership or similar structure is recognised, what's to stop these people from just not leaving when asked?

Edit: Oh okay that's all been covered since the post I quoted.


----------



## Tom A (May 1, 2013)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> I've heard that the police are trying to disrupt the protesters by directing their mentally ill/chronically homeless to some of the encampments. I'm not saying that mentally ill or homeless people are automatically going to hurt them, but they'd certainly provide issues that your average student-type would be unequipped to deal with.


Just reading though this thread and came across this - and the police did something very similar with Occupy Manchester (sorry, OccupyMCR, all about the brand innit). At the beginning they were in Albert Square by the Town Hall. A few people there decided to liaise with the police (AFAIK without debating it with the rest of Occupy - there was a major deficiency of democracy there, dissent was quickly shouted down). The police suggested they would be able to stay for two weeks if they moved to the Peace Gardens near St Peter's Square. They did so. Unfortunately the Peace Gardens is a favoured hangout for a lot of the homeless and down-and-outs in Manchester, whom unsurprisingly got quite disgruntled when this mass of middle-class hipster wankers descended unto THEIR space. There were altercations, and Occupy ended up abandoning the space, and to top it off, the debris (which was as was usually left by the homeless) left behind was splatted on the front page of the Manchester Evening News, with the blame fully placed upon Occupy.

Thus endeth Occupy Manchester as a potential political force, they soon descended into freeman/Zeitgeistista territory, and ceased to "Occupy" anything, becoming nothing more than a Facebook page and a group of said Zeitgeististas who hung around the periphery of UKUncut and anti-workfare demonstrations in the city.


----------



## Tom A (May 1, 2013)

Back to recent news, I am appalled (but sadly unsurprised) this has happened, there seems to be a lot of chronic failings in Occupy, and several people whom don't like Occupy being called out on problematic shit (this goes for London as well). Now I don't want to go into a "why I'm not an anarchist" rant, but what went down with Occupy (and yes, it's debatable whether they are anarchists or just plagiarise them), and, *more importantly*, accounts I hear from people whom have suffered abuse and betrayal of trust from within activist communities (including among anarchists) has done a lot to knock down what was already a low amount of faith I have in activists, and I am feeling that it is impossible for any community to "police" itself - not that I feel that the current police, legal, and judiciary system is the best we can hope for.


----------



## Delroy Booth (May 1, 2013)

Tom A said:


> Unfortunately the Peace Gardens is a favoured hangout for a lot of the homeless and down-and-outs in Manchester, whom unsurprisingly got quite disgruntled when this mass of middle-class hipster wankers descended unto THEIR space.


 
I'm sure a similar thing happened at Occupy Sheffield outside the cathedral, although I wasn't there enough to comment on the details.


----------

