# Warrington Bomb Linked to Red Action - BBC News



## Red Storm (Sep 2, 2013)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23632246

Not seen anything on here about this yet. Not watched the BBC Inside Out on it yet either.

Just about to watch it.

EDIT: Got the dates mixed up with the time difference. On to night. 

EDIT 2: seen someone just wrote about it already on the BTF thread.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2013)

Red Storm said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23632246
> 
> Not seen anything on here about this yet. Not watched the BBC Inside Out on it yet either.
> 
> ...


i wonder what's brought this on now.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Sep 2, 2013)

i suspect it's a Red herring, tbh.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 2, 2013)

Doesn't sound like there's much of a basis other than one did Harrods so it's possible


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Doesn't sound like there's much of a basis other than one did Harrods so it's possible


What's possible?


----------



## articul8 (Sep 2, 2013)

I'm saying they appear to be deducing the possibility that RA were behind Warrington, from the involvement of one of them in an unrelated bombing.  And little else.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2013)

But what's possible? What did you mean was possible?


----------



## articul8 (Sep 2, 2013)

I'm saying that their logic is "they did it that time so it's possible they did Warrington".  There doesn't appear to be much more to it than that.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 2, 2013)

This smells.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I'm saying that their logic is "they did it that time so it's possible they did Warrington".  There doesn't appear to be much more to it than that.


But what did you mean 'it's possible'? It' a straightforward non trick question. You types the words. What did you mean? Did you mean that you agree that it's possible the state did it? With el-ah's throwaway comment? 

And why are you talking about the prog that you haven't seen? Why are you outlining the logic it takes?


----------



## articul8 (Sep 2, 2013)

I was talking about the basis on which the state was inferring "it's possible" that RA did Warrington.  I don't think (though couldn't categorically rule out) the state was actually responsible for doing it.  But it's entirely possible they chose not to act on warnings when they could have done so.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I was talking about the basis on which the state was inferring "it's possible" that RA did Warrington.  I don't think (though couldn't categorically rule out) the state was actually responsible for doing it.  But it's entirely possible they chose not to act on warnings when they could have done so.



ffs when you said



> Doesn't sound like there's much of a basis other than one did Harrods so it's possible



what did you mean? Were you replying to el-ahs post? Were you talking about the logic of the programs argument? If so, where did you see that logic and argument?


----------



## articul8 (Sep 2, 2013)

the logic as set out in the video - perhaps there;s more to come in the full programme


----------



## framed (Sep 2, 2013)

It looks like an attempt to find RA 'guilty by association'. 

Without strong evidence and credible sources to back up the claim, it will simply amount to a bad-jacketing exercise.


----------



## Fedayn (Sep 2, 2013)

framed said:


> It looks like an attempt to find RA 'guilty by association'.
> 
> Without strong evidence and credible sources to back up the claim, it will simply amount to a bad-jacketing exercise.



Most likely but why now? The possible rise of 'street fascism' and as a result the possible rise of physical force anti-fascism coming back and as such ability to poison the well against the latter? Seems strange timing? It's not even the anniversary, which was February, so why the 'need' to do it now? Has something happened?


----------



## framed (Sep 2, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> Most likely but why now? The possible rise of 'street fascism' and as a result the possible rise of physical force anti-fascism coming back and as such ability to poison the well against the latter? Seems strange timing? It's not even the anniversary, which was February, so why the 'need' to do it now? Has something happened?



This has not come out of the blue. There's been an ongoing operation for some years now to play RA into the Warrington scenario.

It may be convenient for various parties to hang the blame for Warrington on a 'rogue' oufit. Red Action appears to be the chosen 'patsy'.

There's also the recent revelations about undercover police officers to consider. Might this be an attempt by the state to justify the necessity of undercover work in subversive organisations?


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 2, 2013)

i really doubt this is true.


----------



## dylanredefined (Sep 2, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I was talking about the basis on which the state was inferring "it's possible" that RA did Warrington.  I don't think (though couldn't categorically rule out) the state was actually responsible for doing it.  But it's entirely possible they chose not to act on warnings when they could have done so.


  Are you jazz?
 What possible reason would the uk government have for bombing its own town?
As an excuse for cracking down on the PIRA?
    They didn't need one. Can't think of anything that would have been effective that they weren't doing already. Or people were dead against.


----------



## Fedayn (Sep 2, 2013)

framed said:


> This has not come out of the blue. There's been an ongoing operation for some years now to play RA into the Warrington scenario.
> 
> It may be convenient for various parties to hang the blame for Warrington on a 'rogue' oufit. Red Action appears to be the chosen 'patsy'.
> 
> There's also the recent revelations about undercover police officers to consider. Might this be an attempt by the state to justify the necessity of undercover work in subversive organisations?



Must admit i've not clocked the top para, the last para however does make for a sensible reading of it. So much of the press re recent undercover revelations have been bad, this might be a little reminder of what happens if the security services aren't well resourced, a 'look what could happen' scenario, trying to make the point of how important such operations are without being seen as condoning the actions of a number of undercovers.


----------



## Red Storm (Sep 2, 2013)

Seems weird to pop up now. 

Hopefully the "Why?" will reveal it's self. 

I don't think this will do any damage to the current anti-fascist movement though.The far right will have a field day but so what. 

I'm awaiting Nick Griffins tweet.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 2, 2013)

dylanredefined said:


> Are you jazz?
> What possible reason would the uk government have for bombing its own town?
> As an excuse for cracking down on the PIRA?
> They didn't need one. Can't think of anything that would have been effective that they weren't doing already. Or people were dead against.


 
I didn't say it was likely, I said I couldn't categorically rule it out.  Given the extent of state complicity in aiding and abetting the killing of civilians via loyalist terror gangs they are not above it.


----------



## Red Storm (Sep 2, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I didn't say it was likely, I said I couldn't categorically rule it out.  Given the extent of state complicity in aiding and abetting the killing of civilians via loyalist terror gangs they are not above it.



The IRA admitted responsibility for it. In terms of the deaths, they blamed the police for not taking heed of the warning.


----------



## love detective (Sep 2, 2013)

no surprise that certain characters who were behind (or connected to) the various attempts to stop the publication of BTF have had a hand in this documentary


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 2, 2013)

From the above mentioned book and reading the lengthly threads etc I always had the impression RA were interested in driving far right orgs off the streets, not blowing thing up


----------



## LiamO (Sep 2, 2013)

love detective said:


> no surprise that certain characters who were behind (or connected to) the various attempts to stop the publication of BTF have had a hand in this documentary



a large - and clumsy - hand.

We've been waiting for this for mebbe two years now - even before Donal McIntyre's fairy tale. It will be interesting to watch the ripple out


----------



## TopCat (Sep 2, 2013)

love detective said:


> no surprise that certain characters who were behind (or connected to) the various attempts to stop the publication of BTF have had a hand in this documentary


Name them!


----------



## LiamO (Sep 2, 2013)

TopCat said:


> Name them!



For what purpose? Best to see how this pans out and connect the dots... rather than jump in and allow them to set the agenda with their obfuscation and smoke n mirrors at this stage.


----------



## TopCat (Sep 2, 2013)

LiamO said:


> For what purpose? Best to see how this pans out and connect the dots... rather than jump in and allow the obfuscation and moke n mirrors begin at this stage.


I hear you. 
On a slightly separate note. Is this on I player tonight?


----------



## Red Storm (Sep 2, 2013)

TopCat said:


> I hear you.
> On a slightly separate note. Is this on I player tonight?



Yup


----------



## LiamO (Sep 2, 2013)

how do you get it if you live in a different ITV region? 

Can you select different ITV regions on SKY?


----------



## Fedayn (Sep 2, 2013)

LiamO said:


> how do you get it if you live in a different ITV region?
> 
> Can you select different ITV regions on SKY?



Channel 958 on SKY


----------



## TopCat (Sep 2, 2013)

It's on the BBC?


----------



## Red Storm (Sep 2, 2013)

Yeah it's bbc. 

Google inside out and you can view it online, select north west.


----------



## Red Storm (Sep 2, 2013)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b039kn3b/Inside_Out_North_West_02_09_2013/


----------



## LiamO (Sep 2, 2013)

how do you choose it?


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Sep 2, 2013)

Red Storm said:


> Yeah it's bbc.
> 
> Google inside out and you can view it online, select north west.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/


----------



## Red Storm (Sep 2, 2013)

LiamO said:


> how do you choose it?



I think it will come available when the programme starts. Otherwise it'll be shortly after it finishes.


----------



## Red Storm (Sep 2, 2013)

Looks like only the London one is available live. 

Fucking London...


----------



## peterkro (Sep 2, 2013)

Doesn't it say iPlayer seven days later.Anybody found a stream?


----------



## Red Storm (Sep 2, 2013)

peterkro said:


> Doesn't it say iPlayer seven days later.Anybody found a stream?



Available up until 7 days later


----------



## love detective (Sep 2, 2013)

quality work from the bbc:-

'Jan Hayes and Patrick Taylor'


----------



## LiamO (Sep 2, 2013)

Yeah. I spit me tea on that one... and it's been up there all day too.


----------



## Fedayn (Sep 2, 2013)

That was appalling, speculation, assertion, guesswork, allegations and questions masquerading as investigative journalism.


----------



## framed (Sep 2, 2013)

What a ridiculous piece of television that was.

"A rogue IRA unit comprising of Englishmen.."

Yeah, it must have been Red Action, stands to reason, dinnit?


----------



## TopCat (Sep 2, 2013)

Usual shit then? I did a double take looking at the trailer and hearing the forenames get switched around.


----------



## love detective (Sep 2, 2013)

send in the clowns!


----------



## TopCat (Sep 2, 2013)

What time is it on Iplayer? I wanted to eat me dinner and watch it...


----------



## ayatollah (Sep 2, 2013)

This programme is utter , politically illiterate, shite. Ex Red Action members can  defend themselves , but , Jesus ! ... just how much (possibly libellous) shite it is may not be obvious to people who aren't aware of the political divisions within Republicanism during the armed struggle in Northern Ireland, including the 1990's period of the Warrington atrocity. For those not au fait with the Warrington  bombings  , two episodes; a bombing of gas storage units on 25th Feb. 1993, by a Provisional  IRA active  service unit - followed by shoot out with cops - two of three members of unit arrested - and eventually jailed.  Second episode - 20 march 93 - bombs went off in litter bins in busy street killing two - noone apprehended -  The IRA later claimed they gave a warning which was ignored.

From Wikipedia:

The day after the bombing, the Provisional IRA admitted that its members had planted the bombs. In a statement, it said:
"Responsibility for the tragic and deeply regrettable death and injuries caused in Warrington yesterday lies squarely at the door of those in the British authorities who deliberately failed to act on precise and adequate warnings."[11]

So  note that both events were definitely acknowledged Provisional IRA active service unit actions.   Those not familiar with Red Action at the time may not know that they quite openly had  friendly personal and political relations with  the avowedly revolutionary socialist  Irish INLA  movement  - and RA members were regularly nipping over to N. Ireland to openly socialise with INLA members  (being regularly asked for their identities by Special Branch on these trips). But Red Action had NO relations WHATSOEVER with the Provos. Because  INLA and the Provos spent a decade or more SHOOTING each other  , as absolutely deadly political rivals ! - not co-operating partners on bombing missions ! There is no chance WHATSOEVER of a Red Action connection with the Provisional IRA Warrington atrocity - NONE.  Special Branch will have known perfectly well who all the Red Action people were in the North West in 1993 -- and for the reasons I state, which SB were perfectly well aware of , will at the time have discounted any RA involvement - quite rightly.

It's a real mystery what this total libellous crap is all about - it's got Donal's fingerprints all over it. But to what end ? Libelling a now defunct leftie group seems to achieve little. Just a chance to tar the radical Left generally with "terrorism" as the anti austerity struggle slowly starts to heat up - and radical Left views start to get a more sympathetic hearing ?


----------



## Red Storm (Sep 2, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> Just a chance to tar the radical Left generally with "terrorism" as the anti austerity struggle slowly starts to heat up - and radical Left views start to get a more sympathetic hearing ?



Although I'd like to hope this is a viable reason, I don't think it is the reason for the programme.


----------



## framed (Sep 2, 2013)

Perhaps the Ayatollah might care to read some of the Red Action articles around the peace process contained in the pamphlet 'The Truce Is Out There', which more accurately represent the views of Red Action on Irish republicanism?

Red Action supported broad Irish republican principles and worked in non-sectarian and non-partisan solidarity with many republican organisations and their support groups, both provisional and republican socialist.


----------



## ayatollah (Sep 2, 2013)

Red Storm said:


> Although I'd like to hope this is a viable reason, I don't think it is the reason for the programme.


 
I've admitted I'm in the dark for the motive. It isn't even the anniversary . What do you think the reason is ?


----------



## Red Storm (Sep 2, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> I've admitted I'm in the dark for the motive. It isn't even the anniversary . What do you think the reason is ?



I don't know to be honest. 

Could be a range of things but I don't think it's isolated.


----------



## Red Storm (Sep 2, 2013)

framed said:


> Perhaps the Ayatollah might care to read some of the Red Action articles around the peace process contained in the pamphlet 'The Truce Is Out There', which more accurately represent the views of Red Action on Irish republicanism?
> 
> Red Action supported broad Irish republican principles and worked in non-sectarian and non-partisan solidarity with many republican organisations and their support groups, both provisional and republican socialist.



Where is that pamphlet available?


----------



## framed (Sep 2, 2013)

Red Storm said:


> Where is that pamphlet available?



I thought you might have it already on the archive. I think it was on the old RA site.

If you can't find it, I'll dig a copy out for you.


----------



## love detective (Sep 2, 2013)

the individual pieces are available here


----------



## ayatollah (Sep 2, 2013)

framed said:


> Perhaps the Ayatollah might care to read some of the Red Action articles around the peace process contained in the pamphlet 'The Truce Is Out There', which more accurately represent the views of Red Action on Irish republicanism?
> 
> Red Action supported broad Irish republican principles and worked in non-sectarian and non-partisan solidarity with many republican organisations and their support groups, both provisional and republican socialist.


 
Pardon me  , framed, I'm just going from the endless (often  very amusing) stories told to me by numerous ex Red Action member comrades  themselves.  But I'm sure the no doubt excellent pamphlets will give me a much better idea of what actually went on at the time. Nothing like a good pamphlet to clarify the historical record.


----------



## framed (Sep 2, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> Pardon me  , framed, I'm just going from the endless (often  very amusing) stories told to me by numerous ex Red Action member comrades  themselves.  But I'm sure the no doubt excellent pamphlets will give me a much better idea of what actually went on at the time. Nothing like a good pamphlet to clarify the historical record.



Your stories are from the mid-1980's John, Red Action developed politically and moved on from all those old anecdotes... The IRSP/INLA were a spent force, both politically and militarily, by the late 1980's. Looks like you and all those _"numerous ex Red Action member comrades themselves"_ who told you stories missed an entire decade of political activity. That's probably why you are unable to offer a cogent analysis of Red Action's politics, and you are certainly no spokesman or witness to where we stood in relation to Irish republican organisations.


----------



## ayatollah (Sep 2, 2013)

framed said:


> Your stories are from the mid-1980's John, Red Action developed politically and moved on from all those old anecdotes... The IRSP/INLA were a spent force, both politically and militarily, by the late 1980's. Looks like you and all those _"numerous ex Red Action member comrades themselves"_ who told you stories missed an entire decade of political activity. That's probably why you are unable to offer a cogent analysis of Red Action's politics, and you are certainly no spokesman or witness to where we stood in relation to Irish republican organisations.


 
This will surprise you, but I actually think you may be quite correct that the great tales I have often been regaled with by ex Red Action comrades do indeed, on reflection,   peter out by the late 1980's, framed. I therefore unreservedly withdraw my  initial posted  response to the  BBC smear programme, that on political association grounds alone the BBC programme accusation against Red Action in 1993  must have been complete crap. I still think that SB must have had a good look at all the well known RA members in the North West at the time , and definitively ruled them out.  I can't help thinking that your  ripostes are simply digging you a deeper hole in relation to the BBC accusations, however.


----------



## shygirl (Sep 2, 2013)

framed said:


> Perhaps the Ayatollah might care to read some of the Red Action articles around the peace process contained in the pamphlet 'The Truce Is Out There', which more accurately represent the views of Red Action on Irish republicanism?
> 
> Red Action supported broad Irish republican principles and worked in non-sectarian and non-partisan solidarity with many republican organisations and their support groups, both provisional and republican socialist.



That's right, but I do seem to recall a stronger leaning towards the IRSPs in the early 80's.  Probably lost touch around '85.


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 2, 2013)

Tis bollocks. nuff said.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 2, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> I've admitted I'm in the dark for the motive. It isn't even the anniversary . What do you think the reason is ?



I think it is a prelude.


----------



## framed (Sep 3, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> I can't help thinking that your  ripostes are simply digging you a deeper hole in relation to the BBC accusations, however.



These would be the completely ridiculous and unsubstantiated allegations made in last night's programme? Where's the hole?


----------



## framed (Sep 3, 2013)

LiamO said:


> I think it is a prelude.



It's a possibility, but if this is the prelude it's a poor one...


----------



## Red Storm (Sep 3, 2013)

Looks like the grooming Inside Out on BBC London has overshadowed the RA one.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 3, 2013)

One of the republicans (also an 'englishman') convicted during this campaign was also a Chelsea Headhunter and had been for years. I look forward to _that_ programme.


----------



## bignose1 (Sep 3, 2013)

I knew thius wa


love detective said:


> no surprise that certain characters who were behind (or connected to) the various attempts to stop the publication of BTF have had a hand in this documentary


Expand...


----------



## LiamO (Sep 3, 2013)

"if the man who allegedly headed the IRA's terror campaign in England can't tell us who bombed Warrington, then question's remain". Like he told them which individuals carried out all the other hundreds of attacks? What a _ridiculous_ notion.

This man 'who allegedly headed the IRA's terror campaign in England' was 'born in Birmingham' but was not referred to as 'an Englishman', simply because that did not fit the narrative of the programme.

Irish republicans with English (or Scottish or Welsh) accents have featured prominently in _every_ campaign of the last 100 years (including the last two killed in that particular campaign... Ed O'Brien and Diarmuid O'Neil).

Indeed in 1916 there were lots of English accents in the GPO - more than from practically any county in Ireland bar Dublin (120 men from the London Irish Volunteers - although I have never seen a breakdown of how many of these were Irish-born and how many had English accents) .

So for this programme to suggest that IRA men with English accents is something new, despite it being such a well documented historical trait (and despite the man they  - _dubiously_ - declare was 'in charge' of the whole fuckin campaign being born in Birmingham!) is ridiculous. But that's what suited the narrative of the 'journalists' involved.


----------



## bignose1 (Sep 3, 2013)

bignose1 said:


> I knew thius wa
> 
> Expand...


Infact dont expand because pal your a fucking knob...a cock of the highest order. You deliberately put people on offer again. Infact your as bad as the arseholes who wheeled this piece of journalistic shite out last night. Even a cursory knowledge of personal relationships (that you knew existed more than most) during that sorry time renders your slurs bollocks, being as its central to their sorry story you'd know that. But that doesnt matter. You obviously couldn't contain yourself. So launch a cheap shot reminiscent of that stuff around NR's publication. I thought people had put to bed that miserable stuff months ago.

People are pm'ing me on this saying leave it and I will..as you make a good enough case for a clown than I could. Wanker.


----------



## TopCat (Sep 3, 2013)

bignose1 said:


> Infact dont expand because pal your a fucking knob...a cock of the highest order. You deliberately put people on offer again. Infact your as bad as the arseholes who wheeled this piece of journalistic shite out last night. Even a cursory knowledge of personal relationships (that you knew existed more than most) during that sorry time renders your slurs bollocks, being as its central to their sorry story you'd know that. But that doesnt matter. You obviously couldn't contain yourself. So launch a cheap shot reminiscent of that stuff around NR's publication. I thought people had put to bed that miserable stuff months ago.
> 
> People are pm'ing me on this saying leave it and I will..as you make a good enough case for a clown than I could. Wanker.


What's this? A pre emptive strike?


----------



## malatesta32 (Sep 3, 2013)

LiamO said:


> One of the republicans (also an 'englishman') convicted during this campaign was also a Chelsea Headhunter and had been for years. I look forward to _that_ programme.



can you say any more on that feller? slightly odd connection between republicanism and headhunter shite esp with the loyalist links of C18/HHs.


----------



## likesfish (Sep 3, 2013)

malatesta32 said:


> can you say any more on that feller? slightly odd connection between republicanism and headhunter shite esp with the loyalist links of C18/HHs.



Violent shithead gets off on violence?


----------



## articul8 (Sep 3, 2013)

LiamO said:


> I think it is a prelude.


 to what?


----------



## bignose1 (Sep 3, 2013)

TopCat said:


> What's this? A pre emptive strike?


No...when you respond that isnt pre-emptive. When your clown friend makes a statement like he did theyve either got to put up or shut the fuck up. He's a shit stirrer....a tittle tattler...... you seem to act like a tag team ...within minutes your on his cock. 

As I said you condemn yourselves. I have nothing more to say.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 3, 2013)

malatesta32 said:


> can you say any more on that feller? slightly odd connection between republicanism and headhunter shite esp with the loyalist links of C18/HHs.



Not really. I don't think he would appreciate it. Just that he was a sarf London boy who was a product of his time.  

I would however say that the notion that _all _Chelsea's firm (or even _most _of them)  were fash (or even fash symapthisers) is a silly over-simplification. What they _did_ have was a very vocal and visible minority - some of whom were Chelsea fans who were Fash and some who were fash who decided to support Chelsea because the existenxce of the first group gave them a hard-on - and  who were often regarded as mugs by other Chelsea hoolies..


----------



## LiamO (Sep 3, 2013)

likesfish said:


> Violent shithead gets off on violence?



says the ex-soldier. Unlike him, you were _paid_ for your violence.


----------



## malatesta32 (Sep 3, 2013)

'What they _did_ have was a very vocal and visible minority'

yeah, they wrote shit books about it after as well!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Sep 3, 2013)

Can anyone summarise the meat of the programme? Was there anything there beyond "A Red Action member was done for one IRA bombing, therefore Red Action may have been responsible for whatever bombing we can think of"? Why Warrington in particular for instance?


----------



## LiamO (Sep 3, 2013)




----------



## LiamO (Sep 3, 2013)

. dp


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 3, 2013)

Stop it, this is a hornet nest kicking exercise by departments who are having their budgets cut in the next parliament.
Like local authorities are trying to keep their budgets by highlighting problems that only exist in disrupting middle management, they are showing that their are threats or dangers where non exist.
Leave it alone, it is all supposition and mirrors.


----------



## TopCat (Sep 3, 2013)

bignose1 said:


> No...when you respond that isnt pre-emptive. When your clown friend makes a statement like he did theyve either got to put up or shut the fuck up. He's a shit stirrer....a tittle tattler...... you seem to act like a tag team ...within minutes your on his cock.
> 
> As I said you condemn yourselves. *I have nothing more to say*.



I bet a crisp tenner that you have plenty more to say, chiefly comprising of insults, mock outrage, and general obfuscation.


----------



## bignose1 (Sep 3, 2013)

TopCat said:


> I bet a crisp tenner that you have plenty more to say, chiefly comprising of insults, mock outrage, and general obfuscation.


Listen dick brain...its been quiet for ages...not sure whether it was an agree to disagree but it was getting barmy... then you call me in effect a grass...hardly an insult is it...and in the context a very dangerous one.

And it aint mock mate...that sort of shit gets people hurt...and as for obfuscation..dear dear..whose a clever boy.
You bring this in following several months of relative calm...on the back of a touchy subject...fuck me if I was one for fingering cunts with agendas you'd be right up there.
Outline in detail what you and your erstwhile comrade actually mean or STFU and stop the surplusage.


----------



## TopCat (Sep 3, 2013)

bignose1 said:


> Listen dick brain...its been quiet for ages...not sure whether it was an agree to disagree but it was getting barmy... then you call me in effect a grass...hardly an insult is it...and in the context a very dangerous one.
> 
> And it aint mock mate...that sort of shit gets people hurt...and as for obfuscation..dear dear...whose a clever boy.
> You bring this in following several months of relative calm...on the back of a touchy subject...fuck me if I was one for fingering cunts with agendas you'd be right up there.
> Outline in detail what you and your erstwhile comrade actually mean or STFU.


You owe me a tenner.


----------



## bignose1 (Sep 3, 2013)

TopCat said:


> You owe me a tenner.


Kiss my arse. Answer my question and Ill give you a £20 spot. Infact not a question just explain what your pal meant in detail with examples, places, people. If you dont your no better than the framing cnuts themselves.


----------



## love detective (Sep 3, 2013)

bignose1 one minute said:
			
		

> Expand...






			
				bignose1 another minute said:
			
		

> Infact dont expand because pal your a fucking knob....(cock, arsehole, clown, wanker etc..)






			
				bignose1 the next minute said:
			
		

> People are pm'ing me on this saying leave it and I will.






			
				bignose1 and the next minute said:
			
		

> Outline in detail what you and your erstwhile comrade actually mean or STFU (dick brain, cunts, etc..)



you're all over the place here bignose

your hugely defensive and aggressive reaction to a post that contained nothing about you, nor in anyway related to you, is somewhat curious

as for _'deliberately putting people on offer'_ - where has that happened?

all that has happened is the private observation of the involvement of certain individuals in a number of what could otherwise be seen as unrelated incidents, attacks and smears. And that what unites them (in addition to the those behind and in front of them) is their ham-fisted & clumsy execution


----------



## bignose1 (Sep 3, 2013)

love detective said:


> you're all over the place here bignose
> 
> your hugely defensive and aggressive reaction to a post that contained nothing about you, nor in anyway related to you, is somewhat curious
> 
> ...


Your last para makes absolutely no sense whatsoever...I was going to add you couldnt make it up...but obviously YOU could. A private observation on a public forum wtf. You have alluded to people being behind this programme being responsible by association to those you had a beef with over BTF. Think about it. Its grassing. You throw a smear out there and hope some of it sticks. Its mob mentality...a cunts trick.


----------



## TopCat (Sep 3, 2013)

bignose1 said:


> Your last para makes absolutely no sense whatsoever...I was going to add you couldnt make it up...but obviously YOU could. A private observation on a public forum wtf. You have alluded to people being behind this programme being responsible by association to those you had a beef with over BTF. Think about it. Its grassing. You throw a smear out there and hope some of it sticks. Its mob mentality...a cunts trick.



You do a lot of projection on these boards, it's all plain for people to read on the beating the fascists thread. You never did explain why you strived so hard to stop the publication of BTF and when that failed why you turned up here to accuse all and sundry of being cunts, cocks etc or indeed what your involvement with Searchlight was/is about.


----------



## love detective (Sep 3, 2013)

bignose1 said:


> Your last para makes absolutely no sense whatsoever...I was going to add you couldnt make it up...but obviously YOU could. A private observation on a public forum wtf. You have alluded to people being behind this programme being responsible by association to those you had a beef with over BTF. Think about it. Its grassing. You throw a smear out there and hope some of it sticks. Its mob mentality...a cunts trick.



it's not that hard to grasp bignose - the observation of the individual(s) involved is a private one - the reference to that observation without naming anyone is the public one

anyway, you've categorically denied having any involvement in any of the attacks on BTF and its authors - so why you getting so hot under the collar? guilty conscience?

likewise, it's unbelievable that you categorise the factual pointing out of those (not that I have done it here mind) who were actually involved in trying to stop the publication of BTF and see its authors in court as grassing or smearing

let's face it - the people involved in supplying names and addresses to Carter Ruck of antifascists so that they could pursue them through the legal system and in court is something much more akin to grassing, wouldn't you agree bignose? 

That you categorise the attempts made to defend against those measures as grassing & smearing shows how far you've been warped by this whole thing


----------



## bignose1 (Sep 3, 2013)

TopCat said:


> You do a lot of projection on these boards, it's all plain for people to read on the beating the fascists thread. You never did explain why you strived so hard to stop the publication of BTF and when that failed why you turned up here to accuse all and sundry of being cunts, cocks etc or indeed what your involvement with Searchlight was/is about.


Rubbish..trying hard to stop a worthwhile book on AFA/RA would have been a cuntish thing...having reservations about how it was going to slander a good friend and comrade while his kids are still grieving his passing is another. Ive told you...you choose not to believe it is my contact with Searchlight ended in 1994. I have never spoken with anyone connected with the current two factions about BTF/RA/AFA for nearly two decades. Something you just cant handle.


----------



## albionism (Sep 3, 2013)

What's BTF?


----------



## articul8 (Sep 3, 2013)

Beating the Fascists (book)


----------



## bignose1 (Sep 3, 2013)

love detective said:


> it's not that hard to grasp bignose - the observation of the individual(s) involved is a private one - the reference to that observation without naming anyone is the public one
> 
> anyway, you've categorically denied having any involvement in any of the attacks on BTF and its authors - so why you getting so hot under the collar? guilty conscience?
> 
> ...


Youve outed a plenty over the years...none more so when NR came about. I never said I didnt have any involvement with LP's attempts to defend her partner with what was rightly predicted a witch hunt. Its a pity you cant see that. You also falsely wheel out this Searchlight conspiracy nonsense. Agendas and blah blah. It was simple mate. Only one reason why LP got involved. And deep down you know thats the only reason.


----------



## love detective (Sep 3, 2013)

I think this post here and the various posts before and after it from the BTF thread (Beating the Fascists - albionism) is worth reading alongside bignose's posts above

as i've repeatedly said on the other thread bignose - I have all the letters from Carter Ruck where you are explicitly referred to as their source

now either they are lying (why would they? why would they involve you?) or you are

and you're all over the place both here and on the BTF thread - you oscillate between saying you had nothing to do with providing information to Carter Ruck, then you claim that if you had done you would have been fully justified in doing so, then you claim that this is not an admittance of doing so, then above you now say you've never denied being involved - can you not just pick one story and stick to it?


----------



## TopCat (Sep 3, 2013)

bignose1 said:


> Rubbish..trying hard to stop a worthwhile book on AFA/RA would have been a cuntish thing...having reservations about how it was going to slander a good friend and comrade while his kids are still grieving his passing is another. Ive told you...you choose not to believe it is my contact with Searchlight ended in 1994. I have never spoken with anyone connected with the current two factions about BTF/RA/AFA for nearly two decades. Something you just cant handle.


That's an interesting post. Perhaps you could make it on the BTF thread and leave this thread to take it's course.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 3, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> i really doubt this is true.



All things are possible.

That *doesn't*, however, mean that all things are very probable.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 3, 2013)

Surely the spooks would have been looking at RA around that time anyway given that Hayes was lifted in March 93?


----------



## TopCat (Sep 3, 2013)

I watched the programme this morning. Apart from the strangeness of this rather serious subject sharing a space with a visit to a garden centre what struck me was the timing? Why now? Add to that the sloppy nature of the whole thing, mixing up names, the pure speculation, it seemed more like a World In Action smear from the 80's. Someone is flying a kite.


----------



## likesfish (Sep 3, 2013)

LiamO said:


> says the ex-soldier. Unlike him, you were _paid_ for your violence.



So he just did it for fun?
 You could make an arguement for armed republicanism but the "long war"was a bankrupt military stratergy that made suez look like a masterstroke

But footy hooliganism??  thats just violent headcases with a nasty spot of racism for added bonus


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 3, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Surely the spooks would have been looking at RA around that time anyway given that Hayes was lifted in March 93?



They are never not looking it is only the level of intensity that varies.


----------



## TopCat (Sep 3, 2013)

likesfish said:


> So he just did it for fun?
> You could make an arguement for armed republicanism but the "long war"was a bankrupt military stratergy that made suez look like a masterstroke
> 
> But footy hooliganism??  thats just violent headcases with a nasty spot of racism for added bonus


A soldier acting simply out of political commitment could well be said to have far more integrity than someone who grasps at the kings shilling.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 3, 2013)

malatesta32 said:


> can you say any more on that feller? slightly odd connection between republicanism and headhunter shite esp with the loyalist links of C18/HHs.



To be fair, I knew at least one of them (known to a few Lambeth residents of my generation and older because his dad was a councillor) who had fairly strong republican sympathies.  And yeah, it was odd, a skinhead Headhunter with the usual decorative tattooage cheering on the Grand Hotel and Ian Gow's meeting with his car seat.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 3, 2013)

Sprocket. said:


> They are never not looking it is only the level of intensity that varies.


 and at that point interest would have been at its height?


----------



## LiamO (Sep 3, 2013)

likesfish said:


> But footy hooliganism??  thats just violent headcases with a nasty spot of racism for added bonus



That's very simplistic, but you do seem a little simple.

Fighting at football was a way of life for many thousands of young working class boys and men in the 70's and 80's for all kinds of reasons. It was one of the defining cultural and social phenomenona of those decades. To ignore this and reduce it to '_just violent headcases with a nasty spot of racism for added bonus_' is to celebrate your ignorance... again.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 3, 2013)

Sprocket. said:


> They are never not looking it is only the level of intensity that varies.



And just because you don't get tugged, doesn't mean they haven't filed away any supposed naughties for possible future use, either.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 3, 2013)

articul8 said:


> and at that point interest would have been at its height?



Well, that's the conundrum.  Not necessarily.  We kind of assume a "spurred into action by evil deeds" scenario that doesn't really fit to how intelligence collection works.  Our intelligence services only act when it's beneficial to the state to do so, otherwise they keep on top of a load of shit that they'll deploy as and when needed, sometimes years down the line.
This, however, is more than likely, as TopCat says, kite-flying - trailing a long line in the water with a snippet as bait, and seeing whether they get any bites that'll help them do one of (IMO) two things:
1) Shut down someone specific by holding something long-past over their heads, or
2) allow the security services to "suggest" legislative amendments to curtail a specific (but possibly entirely fictitious) threat that will also serve to allow the security services greater operational freedom _per se_.

Yup, a little bit CT!


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 3, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> And just because you don't get tugged, doesn't mean they haven't filed away any supposed naughties for possible future use, either.



It wasn't me officer. It was . . . (Insert names/photos here)
Stop talking about it, it winds them into a stinging frenzy.


----------



## framed (Sep 3, 2013)

LiamO said:


> Not really. I don't think he would appreciate it. Just that he was a sarf London boy who was a product of his time.
> 
> I would however say that the notion that _all _Chelsea's firm (or even _most _of them)  were fash (or even fash symapthisers) is a silly over-simplification. What they _did_ have was a very vocal and visible minority - some of whom were Chelsea fans who were Fash and some who were fash who decided to support Chelsea because the existenxce of the first group gave them a hard-on - and  who were often regarded as mugs by other Chelsea hoolies..



And this is relevant to the context of the aforementioned BBC programme in what way?


----------



## malatesta32 (Sep 3, 2013)

albionism said:


> What's BTF?



boring thread fuckover!


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 3, 2013)

dylanredefined said:


> Are you jazz?
> What possible reason would the uk government have for bombing its own town?
> As an excuse for cracking down on the PIRA?
> They didn't need one. Can't think of anything that would have been effective that they weren't doing already. Or people were dead against.



immediately after it there was a massive peace movement mobilised in the south of Ireland, very well funded, lots of tv personalities and the like got behind it . British embassy dabs all over it . Big political push against republicanism of any variety . And a right horrible and dodgy bunch of cunts they were .


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 3, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> But Red Action had NO relations WHATSOEVER with the Provos. Because  INLA and the Provos spent a decade or more SHOOTING each other  , as absolutely deadly political rivals ! - not co-operating partners on bombing missions !



just for accuracys sake this is completely untrue . The two groups were never shooting at each other, not ever . While there was some rivalry, primarily in Belfast, it never degenerated into a shooting match at any time . And there was plenty of unofficial co operation on the ground from time to time as well back in the INLAs earlier days .


----------



## Limerick Red (Sep 3, 2013)

. edit. un needed.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 3, 2013)

framed said:


> Perhaps the Ayatollah might care to read some of the Red Action articles around the peace process contained in the pamphlet 'The Truce Is Out There', which more accurately represent the views of Red Action on Irish republicanism?
> 
> .



oh yeah, I remember reading that stuff on the internet some years back . And while I respect Red Action on many levels as regards their activism I have to say it was probably the biggest load of shite and drivel I have ever read in my life, and stands completely discreditted now as a political position . Either they are totally gullible when it comes to Irish politics or they are incapable of formulating a political analysis thats at odds with the utter shite that comes out of SF headquarters.

If I remember correctly there was also an insitence that anyone who wasnt on board with that shit in Ireland was a British agent . Which was the stock sinn fein line intended to demonise and indeed threaten dissent .
Anyone in working class republican Ireland reading that now would puke . The sooner its revised the better, it only makes them sound like complete idiots when it comes to Irish issues.


----------



## TopCat (Sep 3, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> oh yeah, I remember reading that stuff on the internet some years back . And while I respect Red Action on many levels as regards their activism I have to say it was probably the biggest load of shite and drivel I have ever read in my life, and stands completely discreditted now as a political position . Either they are totally gullible when it comes to Irish politics or they are incapable of formulating a political analysis thats at odds with the utter shite that comes out of SF headquarters.
> 
> If I remember correctly there was also an insitence that anyone who wasnt on board with that shit in Ireland was a British agent . Which was the stock sinn fein line intended to demonise and indeed threaten dissent .
> Anyone in working class republican Ireland reading that now would puke . The sooner its revised the better, it only makes them sound like complete idiots when it comes to Irish issues.



A highly contentious post, one that I would disagree with almost entirely. Lets let posters read the actual articles that you try so casually to discredit and make their own minds up. 

http://www.redactionarchive.org/2012/03/truce-is-out-there.html


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 3, 2013)

TopCat said:


> A highly contentious post, one that I would disagree with almost entirely. Lets let posters read the actual articles that you try so casually to discredit and make their own minds up.
> 
> http://www.redactionarchive.org/2012/03/truce-is-out-there.html



by all means let them read it, their position on Ireland is fucking laughable Im afraid.

just linked to one article at random


> * Joe Reilly argues why this signals continued subversion not sell-out.*



















its as subversive as backing new labour


----------



## framed (Sep 3, 2013)

Your approximation of Red Action's position on Ireland in the 1990's is as much a caricature as Ayatollah's recollection of its position in the 1980's.

Can you actually quote any of the articles concerned and those parts that refer to, or imply that anyone who disagreed with the political process was a 'British agent'? I don't think you do 'remember correctly' that aspect. There was certainly reference to a _'securocrat agenda' _but it's nonsense to approximate the Red Action position as being basically that of Sinn Fein's. Red Action's was a measured response to the political process, as opposed to much of the left and 'dissident republicans' who had remained silent throughout the war but were falling over themselves to denounce the process. The alterations made to the political process and movement away from its original stated intentions is testament to the machinations, political somersaults and naked careerism of the Shinners, not to any failure(s) by Red Action to analyse events at the time.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, I'm only sorry that we weren't wise old soothsayers and fortune tellers like you, or there'd still be a republican movement in Ireland worth speaking of today. Funny how all these clairvoyants have failed to make good on their predictions by building a viable political alternative to SF, innit?


----------



## Red Storm (Sep 3, 2013)

I'm a little confused about the chicken-box bomb segment in the documentary. 

They said that Red Action favoured those types of bombs. What does that mean?

Does anyone have a link or a copy of the article in question? Anyone with a university library log in would be able to find the article online via the Sunday Times Digital Archive.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 3, 2013)

Red Storm said:


> I'm a little confused about the chicken-box bomb segment in the documentary.
> They said that Red Action favoured those types of bombs. What does that mean?



maybe they meant Red Action  were beer-bellied, late night kebab and chicken eaters. grain of truth there


----------



## Red Storm (Sep 3, 2013)

LiamO said:


> maybe they meant Red Action  were beer-bellied, late night kebab and chicken eaters. grain of truth there



I see now. It's actually what happened on the bog in the morning.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 3, 2013)

Yep. Maybe it's from phone taps?

"I dropped a hell of a chicken bomb this morning" or maybe they misheard 'log' as 'bomb'


----------



## bignose1 (Sep 3, 2013)

I tink dey said a ticking box bomb


----------



## bignose1 (Sep 3, 2013)

High eggsplosive


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 3, 2013)

mine must have been an elephant bomb this morning. four flushes - four! 

I don't suppose someone could offer a precis of the program for those of us posting on our phones temporarily without access to a telly or broadband (which to be fair might only be me)?


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 3, 2013)

framed said:


> Your approximation of Red Action's position on Ireland in the 1990's is as much a caricature as Ayatollah's recollection of its position in the 1980's.
> 
> Can you actually quote any of the articles concerned and those parts that refer to, or imply that anyone who disagreed with the political process was a 'British agent'? I don't think you do 'remember correctly' that aspect. There was certainly reference to a _'securocrat agenda' _but it's nonsense to approximate the Red Action position as being basically that of Sinn Fein's. Red Action's was a measured response to the political process, as opposed to much of the left and 'dissident republicans' who had remained silent throughout the war but were falling over themselves to denounce the process. The alterations made to the political process and movement away from its original stated intentions is testament to the machinations, political somersaults and naked careerism of the Shinners, not to any failure(s) by Red Action to analyse events at the time.




With respect comrade, every single last article youve linked to there is an assertion that from the very outset sinn fein are winning, that every aspect of the sinn fein strategy is a success, that the brits are leaving, that their naked careerism and absolute sell out of the whole fucking thing  is actually cunning subversion and undermining of the state . Every rotten betrayal a strategical masterstroke. Every last article and every last line in them  could have been written by one of the hacks in Connolly house, thats how bad the analysis is . Im sorry but its an absolute load of old bollocks, every last word of it . And I say that as someone who respects the record of Red Action quite highly and who has absolutely no axe to grind against them whatsoever or anyone in them.
In fact most republicans that I know respect them and their record on anti fascism as well but on encountering embarassing stuff like that heads are just shook . RA got it very badly wrong in this regard, sadly . Instead of analysing the actual political positions of the parties to the conflict and what theyd signed up to or forced others to sign up to they instead merely embraced  and then indulged in Sinn Feins spinning of the process instead and have ended up looking less than credible in their analysis, to put it mildly . And Im not saying that with any bitterness because theres literally thousands of republicans today openly admitting to have gotten it very wrong back then too .
As regards the _securocrat agenda_ lets be very clear on this point . A securocrat agenda is by definition a British military intelligence agenda . Accusing those who politically opposed this complete and utter fucking treachery..for thats what it was ..and is..of opposing it on the basis of a _securocrat agenda_ is to state that their political opposition to that absolute fucking sell out was a result of British military intelligence machinations against the complete fucking sell out . It was also a phrase uttered by absolutely nobody other than Sinn Fein spokespersons in order to demonise those who disagreed with the complete and utter fucking sell out , a long winded way of calling them touts. They dont use it any more however as its absolutely impossible to stand alongside a British cheif constable in front of television cameras and call for the republican community to come forward as informers and agents against republican activists, as Sinn Fein do , and accuse them of working to a securocrat agenda in the same breath .
In refreshing my memory however the memory of the specific allegation of dissidents being a bunch of British agents stems from a read through the Red Action forum many years back, when a senior figure in the group was outlining where RA stood on the process . Whoever it was put that position, which was straight out of the sinn fein handbook at the time . I clearly remembering reading it in Liamos house at the time because I didnt have the intenet back then, aaand I got a bit angry . Liamo agreed with it though, the cunt . But hes like that , specially back then .


> Hindsight is a wonderful thing, I'm only sorry that we weren't wise old soothsayers and fortune tellers like you, or there'd still be a republican movement in Ireland worth speaking of today. Funny how all these clairvoyants have failed to make good on their predictions by building a viable political alternative to SF, innit?



Its got fuck all to do with hindisght, fortune telling or soothsaying . Its about analysing actual political positions . Up until 1997 the sinn fein position couldnt even be analysed because its members and supporters simply werent allowed to know what it was, while the Brits and everyone else where , and were very happy with it. That did not stop RA from blindly supporting it though, as can be seen in the article of the time, and the ones after it . However John Humes position could be analysed, and as Adams was in agreement with him then the necessity for keeping the republican base completely in the dark on what their strategy actually was was blindingly obvious . When it was finally revealed in 1997 Sinn Fein were telling people its just a ruse to allow the Brits to quietly leave . RA embraced that load of old bollocks too instead of actually analysing what was in the Mitchell principles or the Belfast Agreemnt itself . Instead it spun Sinn Fein spin rather than analysing their position and what theyd agreed to . A complete fucking sell out is what they agreed to . The Brits are going nowhere and never where .


----------



## framed (Sep 3, 2013)

Red Storm said:


> I'm a little confused about the chicken-box bomb segment in the documentary.
> 
> They said that Red Action favoured those types of bombs. What does that mean?



It means it's bullshit... a load of concocted shite that no-one gave any credence to at the time it was written, or now.

There were never any discussions within Red Action about 'favoured' bombs, explosives, guns or bullets. Not in any branch, anywhere.


----------



## framed (Sep 3, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> Its got fuck all to do with hindisght, fortune telling or soothsaying. Its about analysing actual political positions...



Perhaps you can show us something along those lines of analysis that you wrote yourself at the time? I must have missed it, but if the analysis was as glaringly obvious as you claim, surely you must have put pen to paper, or finger to keyboard?


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 3, 2013)

framed said:


> Funny how all these *clairvoyants* have failed to make good on their predictions by building a viable political alternative to SF, innit?



Actually its not funny in the slightest, its a tragedy . I dont understand why your sneering at people for being correct in their analysis at the time..and defending an analysis that plainly got it very wrong.. but plainly some very simple facts and history need pointing out to you . On many occasions in the last century Irish republicanism has been laid very low indeed . The lack of sucess at those various times to rebuild republicanism hasnt been a reflection on either the character or ability of those who took that task on, but rather the political and physical environment in which they had to conduct that task  .
The Belfast agreement itself signalled the complete political defeat of republican seperatism as a political position and set us back almost 100 years, pre 1916 in a political sense . British rule was now legitimised, the Irish people led politically astray by very cunning people indeed . Alongside that republican activists who arent onside have had to endure virtual internment by another name and worse . All it takes in the south for you to be banged up for years on a membership charge is for a garda to stand up in a witness box and tell a no jury court that he believes your a member of a terrorist organisation and thats accepted as evidence and off to jail you go . You cant challenge an opinion, he doesnt have to explain why he has that opinion. Portlaoise was packed to the gills by this method and still is.  In the north political activists are being interned by other means . Such as being accused of serious offences and held on remand sometimes 3 or 4 years . And then the charges being dropped before it goes to trial because either there was never any evidence to begin with or its so badly tainted they cant proceed with it . Ex prisoners with the wrong opinions are being returned to jail having their licenses revoked without any explanation , no means of challenging it . Off to the nick for god knows how many years on the whims of the Britih secretary of state .
Alongside all that the sinn fein whispering campaigns that they were working to the securocrat agenda, abductions, interrogations, being stripped and beaten, death threats and in one case actual assassination at the hands of the provos . People who agreed with their analysis having their homes picketed, death threats, poor souls being made stand up in social clubs to read out prepared statements in front of their neighbours and apologising for criticising the leadership .
So those are just some of the political conditions in which theyve been striving to resurrect republicanism for years .

Just the other week in Belfast I stood alongside literally thousands of republicans from an array of groups and none as we took to the streets in protest against the ongoing political internment of our people by a foreign force of occupation in our country . There must have been more than 3000 people there marching from Ardoyne to Andersonstown . As we stopped outside the felons club some senior shinners and some ex internees who preferred standing drinking to protesting internment came out for a nosey and the marchers spontaeously erupted into singing _Take it down from the mast_ . They were gutted, the tide has turned politically and emotionally . Revolutionary republicans have now mobilised an activist base on the streets in sufficient numbers not to be dismissed or sneered at any more . Not that itll stop some though .

Finally Im not sure what you mean by a viable political alternative, hopefully not a bandwagon that might be big enough to jump on someday . Id suggest of you do actually want to see an altenrative you play a part in building one, rather than sitting waiting for one to come along and sneering at those trying to build it .


----------



## LiamO (Sep 3, 2013)

.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 3, 2013)

framed said:


> Perhaps you can show us something along those lines of analysis that you wrote yourself at the time? I must have missed it, but if the analysis was as glaringly obvious as you claim, surely you must have put pen to paper, or finger to keyboard?



I wasnt a writer back then and didnt have a computer , sorry . But I can assure you I was actively opposing it politically and getting a very serious amount of grief over that . As were the handful of others who agreed with me . We could have taken refuge in the same phonebox back then .


----------



## framed (Sep 3, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> ....Finally Im not sure what you mean by a viable political alternative, hopefully not a bandwagon that might be big enough to jump on someday . Id suggest of you do actually want to see an altenrative you play a part in building one, rather than sitting waiting for one to come along and sneering at those trying to build it .



You seem perfectly at ease with a bit of 'sneering' yourself.

Who are you and what are you building?  Pray tell, because there's nothing in your posts but bile. I've rejected _your_ interpretation of the RA analysis, if you interpret that as 'sneering' it's your problem 'comrade'.

How do you know, or why do you make the assumption, that I'm not involved with any organisation that is trying to build an alternative political strategy to that of Sinn Fein?


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 3, 2013)

LiamO said:


> I would like to apologise for my temerity in disagreeing with 'The only Jihadi in the village'.
> 
> View attachment 40019
> 
> ...



Im arguing against an analysis that got it well wrong . Im not personally having an argument with a person .

eta

whoops a daisy, mebbe I am and didnt know it


----------



## LiamO (Sep 3, 2013)

.


----------



## LiamO (Sep 3, 2013)

.


----------



## framed (Sep 3, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> Im arguing against an analysis that got it well wrong . Im not personally having an argument with a person .



You are arguing with an analysis, the last article of which was written in 1997, yet you seem incapable of offering one of your own, apart from repeating all the old cliches. 

16 years seems a long time to wait to crow about us being 'wrong'...


----------



## framed (Sep 3, 2013)

LiamO said:


> You still could... and give Joan a big sloppy kiss while you are in there
> 
> just seen 'show ignored comment' in the corner of your box so i can guess who you are ranting at/with. You are welcome to each other.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 3, 2013)

framed said:


> You are arguing with an analysis, the last article of which was written in 1997, yet you seem incapable of offering one of your own, *apart from repeating all the old cliches. *
> 
> 16 years seems a long time to wait to crow about us being 'wrong'...



My apologies for not having my own internet site back in 1996 that I can link to for you . The old cliches happen to be true though . Im more than capable of offering my own analysis but that would be a complete derailment of the thread . Im happy to do it on another that addresses those issues, as opposed to the one at hand, Red Action .
And Im not crowing about RA  being wrong, Im actually quite disappointed reading that stuff again . And the only reason Ive even mentioned it is because the thread itself pertains directly to RAs links to, actual and  fabricated, with Irish republicanism and their analysis of Irish republicanism . A criticism of an analysis that was wrong is perfectly valid and shouldnt be taken personally by anyone . Only a fucking crank  takes criticism of analysis personally .


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 3, 2013)

framed said:


> You seem perfectly at ease with a bit of 'sneering' yourself.
> 
> Who are you and what are you building?  Pray tell, because there's nothing in your posts but bile. I've rejected _your_ interpretation of the RA analysis, if you interpret that as 'sneering' it's your problem 'comrade'.
> 
> How do you know, or why do you make the assumption, that I'm not involved with any organisation that is trying to build an alternative political strategy to that of Sinn Fein?



Listen cheif, I couldnt give 2 fucks if your in the Legion of Mary or the boys brigade  . Thats your business . However from a number of your comments its quite clear you take a quite disparaging attitude towards Irish republicans who dont support the Sinn Fein strategy and analysis. You pointed to their failure thus far to build an alternative to sinn fein that you yourself regard as viable as indicating there was something morally and politically deficient in their opposing it in the first place . And given your agitated defence of an analysis that was praising the sinn fein strategy and what they signed up to the whole way down the line  I dont see why youd oppose it now . If youve changed your mind theese days good . But again thats your business , none of mine.

And as for bile fuck off with that . Ive no axe to grind against RA whatsoever . Ive plenty of bile for what Sinn Fein did though so if thats what your referring to I have to say I would find it odd for someone to take offence at Sinn Feins actions being denounced as a fucking sell out to be trying to organise an alternative to their fucking sell out and utter treachery .
But yet again, thats your business .


----------



## framed (Sep 3, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> My apologies for not having my own internet site back in 1996 that I can link to for you . The old cliches happen to be true though . Im more than capable of offering my own analysis but that would be a complete derailment of the thread . Im happy to do it on another that addresses those issues, as opposed to the one at hand, Red Action .
> And Im not crowing about RA  being wrong, Im actually quite disappointed reading that stuff again . And the only reason Ive even mentioned it is because the thread itself pertains directly to RAs links to, actual and  fabricated, with Irish republicanism and their analysis of Irish republicanism . A criticism of an analysis that was wrong is perfectly valid and shouldnt be taken personally by anyone . Only a fucking crank  takes criticism of analysis personally .



I didn't write it, so why would I take it personally? That's a silly point. 

There's no doubt that, in hindsight, some of the RA analysis is 'off the ball', but we weren't the only ones who didn't foresee what was to come, or how rapidly the Shinners would politically deteriorate. Many of their own former supporters and members who now fill the ranks of anti-GFA organisations didn't see it coming either.


----------



## framed (Sep 3, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> Listen cheif, I couldnt give 2 fucks if your in the Legion of Mary or the boys brigade  . Thats your business . However from a number of your comments its quite clear you take a quite disparaging attitude towards Irish republicans who dont support the Sinn Fein strategy and analysis. You pointed to their failure thus far to build an alternative to sinn fein that you yourself regard as viable as indicating there was something morally and politically deficient in their opposing it in the first place . And given your agitated defence of an analysis that was praising the sinn fein strategy and what they signed up to the whole way down the line  I dont see why youd oppose it now . If youve changed your mind theese days good . But again thats your business , none of mine.
> 
> And as for bile fuck off with that . Ive no axe to grind against RA whatsoever . Ive plenty of bile for what Sinn Fein did though so if thats what your referring to I have to say I would find it odd for someone to take offence at Sinn Feins actions being denounced as a fucking sell out to be trying to organise an alternative to their fucking sell out and utter treachery .
> But yet again, thats your business .



You are confusing me with someone else 'chief'.

I don't support the Sinn Fein strategy.

So your analysis was right. I'm sure that must be affirming for you, but apart from that, so what?

Interventions by the likes of LiamO only serve to further confuse and portray Red Action as unquestioning SF cheerleaders. That was never the case. He can chip in with his well-rehearsed 'Jihadi' soundbite against anyone who questions the SF strategy, but the jibes and insults are an avoidance of political reality. That's an unquestioning fellow-traveler for ye...


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 3, 2013)

framed said:


> I didn't write it, so why would I take it personally? That's a silly point.
> 
> There's no doubt that, in hindsight, some of the RA analysis is 'off the ball', but we weren't the only ones who didn't foresee what was to come, or how rapidly the Shinners would politically deteriorate. Many of their own former supporters and members who now fill the ranks of anti-GFA organisations didn't see it coming either.




thats what I said in my posts, some very good freinds of mine supported it back then . Dont now . Im not having a go at Red Action themselves . An awful lot of good people..best of people.. who made the mistake of trusting a bunch of snakes  were taken in at the time .
The point ive been trying..and obviously failing..to get accross is that as that remains their stated analysis and its so abundantly clear now to have been the wrong one, it would be a timely move for them to revise it . Because as it stands thats the record and it doesnt reflect well on them as regards their analysis on Irish affairs . And as their an outfit I respect I dont like to see that type of stuff reflecting poorly on them . 
Because they generally do have a very good political analysis . Its the very reason afterall why theres this attempt to smear them with those Warrington killings in the first place . Some bunch of spooks dont like what their saying and want to make sure it doesnt resonate . Hence the smear .

What is good about it though is its a very good historical record of the political arguments that were used to con the vast majority of republican support at the time .


----------



## TopCat (Sep 3, 2013)

...


----------



## framed (Sep 3, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> thats what I said in my posts, some very good freinds of mine supported it back then . Dont now . Im not having a go at Red Action themselves . An awful lot of good people..best of people.. who made the mistake of trusting a bunch of snakes  were taken in at the time .
> The point ive been trying..and obviously failing..to get accross is that as that remains their stated analysis and its so abundantly clear now to have been the wrong one, it would be a timely move for them to revise it . Because as it stands thats the record and it doesnt reflect well on them as regards their analysis on Irish affairs . And as their an outfit I respect I dont like to see that type of stuff reflecting poorly on them .
> Because they generally do have a very good political analysis . Its the very reason afterall why theres this attempt to smear them with those Warrington killings in the first place . Some bunch of spooks dont like what their saying and want to make sure it doesnt resonate . Hence the smear .
> 
> What is good about it though is its a very good historical record of the political arguments that were used to con the vast majority of republican support at the time .



Fair doos.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 3, 2013)

Id like to add here that my robust remarks about the articles in question were not intended to be abusive, either to RA or the chap that wrote them . A chap Ive never met but of whom Ive heard nothing but positive things . My intent was simply to convey bluntness , not any kind of personal or political attack on anyone in RA .

Sincerest apologies of it came accross like that .


----------



## framed (Sep 3, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> Id like to add here that my robust remarks about the articles in question were not intended to be abusive, either to RA or the chap that wrote them . A chap Ive never met but of whom Ive heard nothing but positive things . My intent was simply to convey bluntness , not any kind of personal or political attack on anyone in RA .
> 
> Sincerest apologies of it came accross like that .



You're entitled to criticise an analysis that you didn't agree with then or now...

I wasn't defending the indefensible, though it may have appeared that way initially. I think we were wrong to put so much faith in the Shinners' strategy, which in the end has amounted to a full scale retreat from republican principles.


----------



## TopCat (Sep 3, 2013)

framed said:


> a full scale retreat from republican principles.


 I would be interested in more on this.


----------



## framed (Sep 3, 2013)

TopCat said:


> I would be interested in more on this.



Another time for that one I think TC, ma heid's pickled the now.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 3, 2013)

Red Action didnt do anything different than the vast majority of the republican base in that regard . Its very easy to see how  republican supporters based in England and Scotland, faced with a daily media barrage of how Gerry Adams and others were the devil incarnate and how much the establishment supposedly despised them  would instinctively be protective of them rather than taking a hostile or critical eye to them . It was little different in Ireland either , even up until relatively recently . They had a united movement behind them, alternative criticisms seemed almost non existent . And to top it all those guys were very charismatic and persuasive and seemed to be getting somewhere, things seemed to be changing . 99 percent of republicans werent prepared to believe the provos were giving it up after all that with nothing in return, it seemed totally preposterous as a notion. An impossibility . So as its an impossibility then its obvious the strategy ..whatever it was..had to be supported as it was going to deliver objectives.
Some good freinds of my own absolutely cringe today about the shenanigans they got up to back then, making sure certain off message ex prisoners got de invited to speaking events, that certain voices and views were censored..all that type of shitty behind the scenes stuff and much worse . 

But anyways, back to the original point of the thread and the smears . Plainly Red Action today are either saying or doing something that the establishment have taken heed of for some reason . Or the establishment fear they may say or do in the near future . Theres definitely a game afoot with dragging all this shit up to smear them . And a nasty little game at that . The point of it would appear to be the most interesting thing . Its probably good to know also that your political positon is considered somehow threatening or unwelcoming by the powers that be , otherwise they wouldnt be at it .


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 3, 2013)

just out of interest is there any indication that toerag MacIntyre has had any input into that programme


----------



## miktheword (Sep 3, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> just out of interest is there any indication that toerag MacIntyre has had any input into that programme


 





When the narrator mentioned the PO Box for initial contact with RA would probably be in Hulme, I was expecting the Noonan link to come up that was in McIntyre's 'At Home with the Noonans'; namely that he said he did the reccy for Warrington. (and had the 32CSM, I think, doing a tribute at his grave, stating he was a volunteer)

That it didn't come up isn't, of course, proof of his (McIntyre's) non involvement. It does seem to point to further sloppiness of the programme makers though, that they didn't include it.  Our security forces...no joined up thinking!


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 3, 2013)

miktheword said:


> When the narrator mentioned the PO Box for initial contact with RA would probably be in Hulme, I was expecting the Noonan link to come up that was in McIntyre's 'At Home with the Noonans'; namely that he said he did the reccy for Warrington. (and had the 32CSM, I think, doing a tribute at his grave, stating he was a volunteer)
> 
> That it didn't come up isn't, of course, proof of his (McIntyre's) non involvement. It does seem to point to further sloppiness of the programme makers though, that they didn't include it.  Our security forces...no joined up thinking!



I seem to remember that came as a bit of a surprise to one or 2 32csm people I spoke to in Ireland about it at the time. Dont remember any mention of it on any of their sites and stuff either and they usually give good coverage to any commemorations they authorise . Im absolutely flabbergasted theyd permit any of their people to either make such claims, and to that scummer of all people given his record of hatchet jobs against themselves . He even once posed as a RIRA man running about the balkans a number of years back to do a story aimed at blackening certain quarters.
With the stuff he was previously alleging about Noonan and Warrington i was pondering a possible linkage. MacIntyre is a busy little bee these days back over in the aul sod trying to stir up a lot of shenanigans on republicans on pretty much a weekly basis . Some really vile stuff from the same rag of a paper hes writing for currently is being published with no reporters name attached to it , while hes been making slightly less vile claims on roughly the same issues . It has a distinct whiff of him and his style  though .


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 3, 2013)

edit


----------



## benedict (Sep 3, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> Plainly Red Action today are either saying or doing something that the establishment have taken heed of for some reason . Or the establishment fear they may say or do in the near future



I thought Red Action were wound up long since or at least that they had folded into the IWCA? What are they doing or saying and where?

Also, for someone who's not in the know on this, what's the background on MacIntyre and the Irish Republican movement?


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 4, 2013)

LiamO said:


> .



ha..being called the only jihadi in the village by the one man in the village who hates them near as bad as i do..tut tut . Theres been a few times out for a pint i was glad to have you beside me, no kidding . Also think a few of the comments directed at your good self are uncalled for. Known you a long time and youve always struck me as a thoroughly decent bloke who never let a political difference ever get personal, unlike a lot of cunts in this neck of the woods . Not that wed even have many differences these days..or ever did .


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 4, 2013)

benedict said:


> I thought Red Action were wound up long since or at least that they had folded into the IWCA? What are they doing or saying and where?
> 
> Also, for someone who's not in the know on this, what's the background on MacIntyre and the Irish Republican movement?



when i said today i meant whatever form they take today and the message thereof

MacIntyres background on republicans is simply to denigrate and criminalise republicans in the most sensationalised manner possible . Its what he does for a living .
He even runs about the balkans impersonating them in his undercover role .


----------



## bignose1 (Sep 4, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> mine must have been an elephant bomb this morning. four flushes - four!
> 
> I don't suppose someone could offer a precis of the program for those of us posting on our phones temporarily without access to a telly or broadband (which to be fair might only be me)?



Tried to photoplop the feather for floater but it didnt work.


----------



## bignose1 (Sep 4, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> when i said today i meant whatever form they take today and the message thereof
> 
> MacIntyres background on republicans is simply to denigrate and criminalise republicans in the most sensationalised manner possible . Its what he does for a living .
> He even runs about the balkans impersonating them in his undercover role .


Too true. He has in the past tried to winkle info out of me. And he got an enormous GTF. Even the hated Searchlight from quite a way back have given him the short shrift. He trys to use his minions but they're so sussable.


----------



## benedict (Sep 4, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> when i said today i meant whatever form they take today and the message thereof
> 
> MacIntyres background on republicans is simply to denigrate and criminalise republicans in the most sensationalised manner possible . Its what he does for a living .
> He even runs about the balkans impersonating them in his undercover role .



What form do they take today though? I understood they were totally wound up since the IWCA initiative seemed to hit the buffers. I'd be genuinely pleased to hear otherwise if some of those involved are working on other political projects.

On MacIntyre, is he just plain interested in building his career through sensational nonsense like that or is there another agenda at play as well?


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 4, 2013)

benedict said:


> What form do they take today though? I understood they were totally wound up since the IWCA initiative seemed to hit the buffers. I'd be genuinely pleased to hear otherwise if some of those involved are working on other political projects.
> 
> On MacIntyre, is he just plain interested in building his career through sensational nonsense like that or is there another agenda at play as well?



Youd need to ask someone else, i dont even live in Britain .

on DM well

have a look at this and note for example how the boul donal is careful to always have a handy explanation for his audience as to how he knows how to do stuff...got this from a spy book..found this tip on the internet, we just happened to be near this army base, this British ambassadors res etc . Definitely nobody coaching him in adavnce or anything . Nosirreebob .

http://www.sundayworld.com/top-stor...ght-15kg-of-semtex-in-europe-s-terror-capital

oh and in that Irish paper he claims he contacted UN troops . On his blog which carries the original story for a British paper he claims he contacted British police. His memory must be poor or something .


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 4, 2013)

Apologies for invoking the Candyman, but this article by Steve Patterson and Larry O'Hara in _Notes From The Borderland_ #3 on Macintyre's working methods seems appropriate to raise at this point:

http://www.borderland.co.uk/index.p...journalism-spij-watch/58-dummy-article20.html


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 4, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> Apologies for invoking the Candyman, but this article by Steve Patterson and Larry O'Hara in _Notes From The Borderland_ #3 on Macintyre's working methods seems appropriate to raise at this point:
> 
> http://www.borderland.co.uk/index.p...journalism-spij-watch/58-dummy-article20.html




thats extremely informative . Thankyou very much .

So apart from being up to his balls as a coppers nark ..among other things..we have a proven link between MacIntyre and Searchlight . What a tangled web 

I wonder if this article of MacIntyres, again returning to the constantly arising themes of anti fascist activism, Irish republicanism...particularly the _dissident_ variety..and the activities and views of fascists themselves has any bearing on his relationship with searchlight . It would be a bit strange if he wasnt consulting them when dealing with this.

http://www.sundayworld.com/top-stories/crime-desk/donal-macintyre-s-crime-cafe/paddy-whackery

seems very well breifed on some outfit called the North West Infidels, whoever they are . Cant say Ive ever heard much of them meself . Not being a local .


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 4, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> seems very well breifed on some outfit called the North West Infidels, whoever they are . Cant say Ive ever heard much of them meself . Not being a local .





The Infidels - both NWI and NEI - are offshoots of the EDL, which consist of people who split off because they felt the League was a bit too miscegenatey for their tastes (amongst other reasons, including personality clashes, "where'd the hoodie-and-masks money go, Tommy?" talk, etc).

Others who know more about these things will, I am sure, be along soon to correct any errors.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 4, 2013)

oh right..infidels..muslims..get it now . Tis a sad day indeed when Donal MacIntyres more clued in than me .

Tis.. to be shure to be shure.


----------



## eoin_k (Sep 4, 2013)

framed said:


> ...
> There's also the recent revelations about undercover police officers to consider. Might this be an attempt by the state to justify the necessity of undercover work in subversive organisations?



This makes sense.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 4, 2013)

bignose1 said:


> Too true. He has in the past tried to winkle info out of me. And he got an enormous GTF. Even the hated Searchlight from quite a way back have given him the short shrift. He trys to use his minions but they're so sussable.



oh right, i thought they may have been breifing him on that liverpool thing . My mistake .


----------



## FNG (Sep 5, 2013)

very little on the BBC website beyond a plug for the program which seems to suggest how little journalistic merit the program has amongst its peers.


----------



## steeplejack (Sep 5, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> Apologies for invoking the Candyman, but this article by Steve Patterson and Larry O'Hara in _Notes From The Borderland_ #3 on Macintyre's working methods seems appropriate to raise at this point:
> 
> http://www.borderland.co.uk/index.p...journalism-spij-watch/58-dummy-article20.html



what an absolute demolition derby that article is 

don't think I've ever seen such a complete character assassination in any other piece of journalism. hats off.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 5, 2013)

Just as an indication as to how low MacIntyres star has fallen in recent years the rag hes currently working for in Ireland, the sunday world, has been summarised on a blog as making the Daily Star look like the Guardian. Its truly that bad , its the definition of  gutter press . And revels in that status . While hes a big fish in that scum laden pool its like a former premiership player being sent on loan to Arbroath united.
Theres little doubt hell be trying to make it back to the big leagues some day so hes worth keeping an eye out for .


----------



## bignose1 (Sep 6, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> thats extremely informative . Thankyou very much .
> 
> So apart from being up to his balls as a coppers nark ..among other things..we have a proven link between MacIntyre and Searchlight . What a tangled web
> 
> ...


When I said Searchlight dropped McIntyre ages ago I meant about the time of that docca...they certainly wouldnt have had anything to do with him recently and that info came from someone..not GG...who I am still friendly at S/light. With McIntyre and his methods of putting people at risk,ie sources, researchers, contacts.....it was pissing more than S/light off.

In that paragraph on Searchlight in L.O'Hs article he says I was at the 99 replay against Chelsea at Stamford Bridge talking and laughing with the police before the game. ( and implying what)?This is a lie and I challenged him and got some sort of half hearted apology. I had not been working with GG for at least 5 years prior to 99 on any level apart from one or two cursory phone calls usually regards some historical stuff. I certainly wasn't their 'man' at that time(99). This poorly researched accusatory bollox is exactly what the creeps from NWN and Shitefront/VNN revel in and its no wonder it fucks people off.


----------



## malatesta32 (Sep 6, 2013)

benedict said:


> I thought Red Action were wound up long since or at least that they had folded into the IWCA? What are they doing or saying and where?
> 
> Also, for someone who's not in the know on this, what's the background on MacIntyre and the Irish Republican movement?



i had a threat from a fash once offering a bundle and he said  'so where are red action and AFA then?'  - my guess was the pub.


----------



## framed (Sep 6, 2013)

bignose1 said:


> In that paragraph on Searchlight in L.O'Hs article he says I was at the 99 replay against Chelsea at Stamford Bridge...



When I read that I thought, 'Well, why wouldn't he be at that match, he's a mad United fan...'   It's not a crime to attend a match at Stamford Bridge, the bit about laughing and sharing jokes with the cops I took with a pinch of salt. It was a silly point and actually detracted from the rest of the article.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 6, 2013)

framed said:


> When I read that I thought, 'Well, why wouldn't he be at that match, he's a mad United fan...'   It's not a crime to attend a match at Stamford Bridge, the bit about laughing and sharing jokes with the cops I took with a pinch of salt. It was a silly point and actually detracted from the rest of the article.



something was up if the plod were laughing at bignoses's puns


----------



## bignose1 (Sep 7, 2013)

framed said:


> When I read that I thought, 'Well, why wouldn't he be at that match, he's a mad United fan...'   It's not a crime to attend a match at Stamford Bridge, the bit about laughing and sharing jokes with the cops I took with a pinch of salt. It was a silly point and actually detracted from the rest of the article.


If it was at the March replay then I was at the game with my 12 year old son. We won 2-0 and had a great time. If it was the 5-0 hiding we got Oct 99 then I wasnt at the match, thankfully. Your right framed Its a silly point but what was he was trying to insinuate. Mischief making. A total irrelevance. I have in the past talked to cops at footy after being stopped. Total irrelevance. Sloppy.


----------



## bignose1 (Sep 7, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> something was up if the plod were laughing at bignoses's puns


I think I told them 'What did the cops say to the 'its a knockout' presenter when they went to nick him.................
.............''Evening Hall''


----------



## Paul Marsh (Sep 11, 2013)

bignose1 said:


> If it was at the March replay then I was at the game with my 12 year old son. We won 2-0 and had a great time. If it was the 5-0 hiding we got Oct 99 then I wasnt at the match, thankfully. Your right framed Its a silly point but what was he was trying to insinuate. Mischief making. A total irrelevance. I have in the past talked to cops at footy after being stopped. Total irrelevance. Sloppy.



'Bignose': The information in the article came from me. I was at the match, and before the game stood outside the away end enjoying the atmosphere. I watched you standing and chatting for several minutes with uniformed cops. Everyone was laughing and joking, you certainly had not been 'stopped' in any way. 

If people want to stop and talk to the police, that is their business. 

But given the history of Searchlight's working relationship with the cops, and your relationship with Searchlight, at the time I thought it correct to raise what I had seen. Guarding against Searchlight, and its chuminess with the state, mattered in the anti-fascist movement in those years. 

Neither Notes from the Borderland, Larry O'Hara or myself have ever been 'challenged' by 'Bignose' on this issue, nor has any apology, whether half-hearted or not, been given. 

Dwight Yorke played well that day.


----------



## framed (Sep 11, 2013)

Paul Marsh said:


> 'Bignose': The information in the article came from me. I was at the match, and before the game stood outside the away end enjoying the atmosphere. I watched you standing and chatting for several minutes with uniformed cops. Everyone was laughing and joking, you certainly had not been 'stopped' in any way.
> 
> If people want to stop and talk to the police, that is their business.
> 
> ...




To cite a chance sighting at a football match as evidence of Searchlight's collaboration with the police is pretty flimsy. There appears to be more hard evidence available of the relationship between Searchlight and the state. This type of circumstantial fluff contributes nothing. It's gossip not evidence.


----------



## Paul Marsh (Sep 11, 2013)

framed said:


> To cite a chance sighting at a football match as evidence of Searchlight's collaboration with the police is pretty flimsy. There appears to be more hard evidence available of the relationship between Searchlight and the state. This type of circumstantial fluff contributes nothing. It's gossip not evidence.



I was not using the sighting as evidence of Searchlight's collaboration with the police - that was already incontrovertible. 

It was put forward, if I recall conversations at the time correctly, because it was seen as indicative of attitudes within Searchlight towards the police when they thought critical eyes were absent.


----------



## bignose1 (Sep 11, 2013)

Paul Marsh said:


> 'Bignose': The information in the article came from me. I was at the match, and before the game stood outside the away end enjoying the atmosphere. I watched you standing and chatting for several minutes with uniformed cops. Everyone was laughing and joking, you certainly had not been 'stopped' in any way.
> 
> If people want to stop and talk to the police, that is their business.
> 
> ...


Wasnt me. It might have been Tony O'Neil....we look very similar...he is more likely to have the banter. Anyway a total irrelevance and mischief making. Even if it was me its just not fucking news.... Now if you saw me brush contact with a cop and get handed a brown envelope thats a different matter. So to educate you....my relationship with Searchlight at the time(99) was....wait for it......................zilch....maybe slighly above zilch meaning I might have got an odd email. But it was 5 years since I left the Searchlight orbit.

Larry O'Hara and myself corresponded by PM over this and he did 'apologise'. I will try and dig out the message if its still there.

Is it the same Paul Marsh who had plenty to say on the Dave Hann stuff 10 years back...but thats for another day?

Right ...just had a look...Im wrong in that he apologised for something else. My mistake. I took it up with him after he called me an ex fascist and he said he would post a retraction. 

So he got that very wrong....mistaken identity or mischief making. But it was at the same time as the silly football thing got brought up.


----------



## bignose1 (Sep 11, 2013)

Paul Marsh said:


> I was not using the sighting as evidence of Searchlight's collaboration with the police - that was already incontrovertible.
> 
> It was put forward, if I recall conversations at the time correctly, because it was seen as indicative of attitudes within Searchlight towards the police when they thought critical eyes were absent.


Actually what you wrote above is absolute shit stirring shite and you need to fucking get a grip mate.


----------



## TopCat (Sep 11, 2013)

bignose1 said:


> Actually what you wrote above is absolute shit stirring shite and you need to fucking get a grip mate.


I haver never known Paul to lie. You responded that it wasn't you, then it may have been. Your all over the place.


----------



## bignose1 (Sep 11, 2013)

TopCat said:


> I haver never known Paul to lie. You responded that it wasn't you, then it may have been. Your all over the place.


You mean you are mate. Its fucking mischief making.


----------



## framed (Sep 11, 2013)

Paul Marsh said:


> I was not using the sighting as evidence of Searchlight's collaboration with the police - that was already incontrovertible.
> 
> It was put forward, if I recall conversations at the time correctly, because it was seen as indicative of attitudes within Searchlight towards the police when they thought critical eyes were absent.



Again, this is flimsy, Paul.

No-one is accusing you of lying about what you saw at a football match, but to extrapolate from it that this sighting somehow symbolises Searchlight's relationship with the police and state is just plain fcuking daft imho. It's a diversion from the very real skullduggery that Searchlight has engaged in and it needlessly personalises the issue.

There are ample examples on the BTF thread of Searchlight's inconsistencies, some of them allegedly involving BigNose, others not.

What does your sighting of him at a football match add to the pot?

As for putting 2+2 together and making 5 out of it; Larry O'Hara's first book on MI5 conspiracies against the left (see _Turning Up The Heat_ page 40, point 4) had me and others in Glasgow AFA logged as intolerant republicans and violent anarchist bashers (ironically, a position not dissimilar to Searchlight's appraisal of Glasgow AFA). Unfortunately Larry only appears to have properly investigated this matter _after_ the book was published when he made contact with Red Action to raise security concerns about me, only to find out that those whom he should really have been investigating were the very people supplying the slander.

Here's a brief summary of what actually happened in Glasgow AFA that I submitted on another thread:

_



			The issue in Glasgow that led to some (but not all) anarchists attempting to break away and form an 'anarchist only' branch of AFA, which they laughingly called 'South Central AFA' (it was in the wake of the LA Riots) was preceded by a serious security issue around one of the leading members of DAM in Glasgow. We requested a full debrief of this individual. He refused to attend any meetings of the Stewards Group or the AFA branch meetings where his actions and failure to inform his AFA comrades of a meeting he had attended (voluntarily) at the request of officers from Lothian and Borders Constabulary could be properly discussed and assessed for potential damage.

Although the matter was not directly AFA-related, it did involve a number of arrests on suspicion of ALF activities of some of the anarchist comrades involved in Edinburgh AFA. They had a local debrief and some of them sensibly offered/agreed to 'stand down' from AFA activities for a while in order to protect the organisation from police scrutiny and political linkage. I should stress that all Red Action ever requested of the individual in Glasgow AFA was a similar type of debriefing meeting, we simply felt that he had made an error of judgment in agreeing to meet the police without legal representation and felt that there might be a case for him to step back from AFA temporarily given that there appeared to be an ongoing police operation targeting individuals under suspicion for ALF activities. There was no suspicion with regard to his integrity until he refused point blank to be held accountable for his actions and subsequently tried to organise a split in the branch along ideological lines.
		
Click to expand...

_


----------



## platinumsage (May 4, 2021)

ayatollah said:


> But Red Action had NO relations WHATSOEVER with the Provos. Because  INLA and the Provos spent a decade or more SHOOTING each other  , as absolutely deadly political rivals !


----------



## TopCat (May 4, 2021)

An eight year bump? To add that? Why platinumsage ?


----------



## platinumsage (May 4, 2021)

TopCat said:


> An eight year bump? To add that? Why platinumsage ?



I was just reminding myself about the Warrington bombing, and then I read about that documentary, and then I saw that flyer, and then I came on urban and read ayatollah's post and it seemed a bit  so I felt the need to reply.


----------

