# Violence dished out to the leaders of the far right



## DeepStoat (Sep 15, 2009)

I've known of one severe beating that stop one individual leader from continuing their involvment.

Why isn't their more targeting of them?

There's a lot of anti-fascists that squirrel away info on the far right, why isn't it used more to target significant people such as Collett et al?


----------



## gamma globulins (Sep 15, 2009)

Yes. What could be wrong with mob-mediated physical violence against people who's political views you oppose?


----------



## Bakunin (Sep 15, 2009)

gamma globulins said:


> Yes. What could be wrong with mob-mediated physical violence against people who's political views you oppose?



Like the kind the likes of C18 were so fond of, you mean?

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, as far as I'm concerned. I don't have a problem with physical force anti-fascism as long as it's correctly targetted.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Sep 15, 2009)

Bakunin said:


> Like the kind the likes of C18 were so fond of, you mean?
> 
> Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, as far as I'm concerned. I don't have a problem with physical force anti-fascism as long as it's correctly targetted.



elitist.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 15, 2009)

The far-right do this to 'leaders' of the left. Why is it ok to seriously injure a far-right 'leader' and not ok for someone from the far-right to injure a left-wing 'leader'. You're on really dodgy ground here.


----------



## DeepStoat (Sep 15, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> The far-right do this to 'leaders' of the left. Why is it ok to seriously injure a far-right 'leader' and not ok for someone from the far-right to injure a left-wing 'leader'. You're on really dodgy ground here.



It's liberal ideas like that, which helped the NSDAP along.


----------



## Bakunin (Sep 15, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> The far-right do this to 'leaders' of the left. Why is it ok to seriously injure a far-right 'leader' and not ok for someone from the far-right to injure a left-wing 'leader'. You're on really dodgy ground here.



Because some elements of the far right are prepared to use violence and intimidation as a first option and have been proven to do so.

What would you suggest? That the left simply tolerates its members being threatened and attacked, before putting out a leaflet about those horrid fash and how it would be great if they were to be all nice and fluffy? Somehow, I don't think waving a few lollipops around and shouting the odd slogan is likely to deter them from their use of violence, really.

I wonder how long the Spanish Civil War would have lasted if the Republican side had relied on pointless A to B marches, waving mass-produced lollipops and shouting empty slogans instead of resorting to the use of force.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 15, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> It's liberal ideas like that, which helped the NSDAP along.



To explain my stance, I am a smallish female and I am not able or willing to use physical force.

You may as well call me 'a girl' instead of a 'liberal'


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 15, 2009)

It is the Sharks teeth factor that makes it futile.  If you eliminate a hard core leader then another person will step in to his place.


----------



## Bakunin (Sep 15, 2009)

Hocus Eye. said:


> It is the Sharks teeth factor that makes it futile.  If you eliminate a hard core leader then another person will step in to his place.



I don't recall Cable Street being futile. I wouldn't have said the battles fought during the Spanish Civil War or WWII were futile either, come to think of it.

Simple fact, the use of properly targetted physical force can be an effective tactic. It's just one tactic among many, but can be an effective tactic nonetheless.

What does seem futile is to let the fash know that they can use force if they feel like it and get away with doing so, while the left would rather take the moral high ground, waving lollipops and shouting meaningless and empty slogans and marching about the place a bit. I hate to break it to some folk, but some people only understand superior force or threats thereof. No threat at all only encourages them, while threats that are made and not followed up only encourage them still further.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 15, 2009)

Why not just assasinate them? I mean if you're already arguing that violence is acceptable, don't pussy foot around by giving them the occassional kicking.

Or course, it does manage to remove a strong moral claim that the left is better than the right, and it also continues to legitimise violence as the final means of achieving social change.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 15, 2009)

Bakunin said:


> I don't recall Cable Street being futile. I wouldn't have said the battles fought during the Spanish Civil War or WWII were futile either, come to think of it.


Cable Street involved 100,000 people - men, women and children - against the BUF as they marched, escorted by Police, through the East End. Completely different situation to tit-for-tat targeting of a far-right leader who is known to resort to violence against his political opponents. 



> Simple fact, the use of properly targetted physical force can be an effective tactic. It's just one tactic among many, but can be an effective tactic nonetheless.


Is that the conclusion that the far-right leader who uses violence against political opponents has come to?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 15, 2009)

Bakunin said:


> I don't recall Cable Street being futile. I wouldn't have said the battles fought during the Spanish Civil War or WWII were futile either, come to think of it....(snip)



I agree about Cable Street and your other examples but they were mass clashes against the fascists.  This thread as I understand it seems to be about attacking individual leaders.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Sep 15, 2009)

Bakunin said:


> I don't recall Cable Street being futile. I wouldn't have said the battles fought during the Spanish Civil War or WWII were futile either, come to think of it.
> 
> Simple fact, the use of properly targetted physical force can be an effective tactic. It's just one tactic among many, but can be an effective tactic nonetheless.
> 
> What does seem futile is to let the fash know that they can use force if they feel like it and get away with doing so, while the left would rather take the moral high ground, waving lollipops and shouting meaningless and empty slogans and marching about the place a bit. I hate to break it to some folk, but some people only understand superior force or threats thereof. No threat at all only encourages them, while threats that are made and not followed up only encourage them still further.


 there is a world of difference between mass action of the working class, and an elitist group attacking a fascist leader on behalf of the working class.


----------



## Spion (Sep 15, 2009)

Bakunin said:


> I don't recall Cable Street being futile. I wouldn't have said the battles fought during the Spanish Civil War or WWII were futile either, come to think of it..


Those were mass actions. The OP is proposing individually targetting fash leaders, presumably by small teams of people. Now, I'm not against the latter, but it's far better that they take place as part of mass campaigns. 



Bakunin said:


> while the left would rather take the moral high ground, waving lollipops and shouting meaningless and empty slogans and marching about the place a bit.


Mass activity to demonstrate opposition is important. Weight of numbers is important to show potential fasc/racist recruits that there are people against them and allows those who aren't necessarily equipped to dish out pavement introductions to be part of facing down physical force racists and fascists.

A case in point was the EDL thing in Brum last weekend where sheer weight of numbers and preparedness to dish out some harsh lessons forced the police to kettle the EDL


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 15, 2009)

Getting bolder eh deepstoat? All being taken for a ride aren't we?


----------



## klang (Sep 15, 2009)

Of course violence can have its good sides - imagine an area right wing leaders wouldn't dare to walk into because they are scared of getting beaten up!?!?!


----------



## Spion (Sep 15, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> Is that the conclusion that the far-right leader who uses violence against political opponents has come to?


No, it's the starting point. That's what defines fascism - use of physical force against the left, labour movement, minorities


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 15, 2009)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> the their is a world of difference between mass action of the working class, and an elitist group attacking a fascist leader on behalf of the working class.



So essentially, it's a violent vanguardism that is being suggested?


----------



## Bakunin (Sep 15, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Why not just assasinate them? I mean if you're already arguing that violence is acceptable, don't pussy foot around by giving them the occassional kicking.
> 
> Or course, it does manage to remove a strong moral claim that the left is better than the right, and it also continues to legitimise violence as the final means of achieving social change.



Who said anything about assassination? Not me.

Sometimes force is necessary, not preferred, but necessary. It's the only thing some people understand and that hasn't changed since humans first existed, nor is it terribly likely to change in any of our lifetimes.

And I'd refer you to a quote from the late George Orwell, himself something of an anti-fascist as I recall, as well:

'All victory involves an element of moral capitulation.'

I'm not saying that physical force is the only tactic to be used against the fash, it's merely one tactic among many. But it certainly has its place among the tactics that can be used, and has been proven to be effective before.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 15, 2009)

> Who said anything about assassination? Not me.



No you didn't, but violence always escalates. You start targetting individuals, the level of violence doled out by your opponents will rise; subsequently the level of violence you are prepared to go to has to rise as well. You also seem to be forgetting that for everyone twat who is intimidated, one will be strengthened by such an escalation (the same applies to both sides) - and the further into a frame of mind defined by physical conflict and desensitisation to the results both sides fall. Violence becomes the end in itself.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 15, 2009)

Spion said:


> Those were mass actions. The OP is proposing individually targetting fash leaders, presumably by small teams of people. Now, I'm not against the latter, but it's far better that they take place as part of mass campaigns.


Well i am against covert targetting of fash leaders, and I think you mean a mass anti-fascist campaign where fash leaders and their minioins resort to violence will need to be prepared resort to physical defence, but avoid resorting to physical offence!


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 15, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> No you didn't, but violence always escalates. You start targetting individuals, the level of violence doled out by your opponents will rise; subsequently the level of violence you are prepared to go to has to rise as well. You also seem to be forgetting that for everyone twat who is intimidated, one will be strengthened by such an escalation (the same applies to both sides) - and the further into a frame of mind defined by physical conflict and desensitisation to the results both sides fall. Violence becomes the end in itself.



This ^^


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 15, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Getting bolder eh deepstoat? All being taken for a ride aren't we?



Well spotted, ba


----------



## TremulousTetra (Sep 15, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> So essentially, it's a violent vanguardism that is being suggested?



I don't understand the question.  However, in my opinion, a community defending itself, is the ultimate form of democracy.  In my opinion, the state shouldn't have to the sole right to the legitimate use of force, the people should.  Something partially recognized in the American constitution.


ETA.
Cable street was an example of a community defended itself.


----------



## Bakunin (Sep 15, 2009)

Well, if the fash are prepared to resort to violence (and they are if they can get away with it) what would those who oppose matching them with their own methods propose?

I repeat: I'm not saying that properly targetted physical force is the be all and end all of anti-fascism. But it's one tactic that has been proven to work, so why discard it out of hand? Taking the moral high ground is all very well, but when your enemy is making progress by letting you stand there while they take care of business without considering the moral or ethical issues, what often happens is the moral high ground is the only ground you have left, the fash having taken everything else.

Sometimes you have to get your hands dirty to achieve the result that's needed.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 15, 2009)

> Sometimes you have to get your hands dirty to achieve the result that's needed.



I bet that's _exactly_ what Cheney said when he authorised the enhanced interrogation techniques.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Sep 15, 2009)

What was the name of that fascist, assassinated a couple of years ago, I think he was in Holland.  FONTYN or something.

eta 
 Pim Fortuyn

A good example, on the bankruptcy, of such a strategy.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Sep 15, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Getting bolder eh deepstoat? All being taken for a ride aren't we?


 not hard though, is it?


----------



## Spion (Sep 15, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> No you didn't, but violence always escalates. You start targetting individuals, the level of violence doled out by your opponents will rise; subsequently the level of violence you are prepared to go to has to rise as well. You also seem to be forgetting that for everyone twat who is intimidated, one will be strengthened by such an escalation (the same applies to both sides) - and the further into a frame of mind defined by physical conflict and desensitisation to the results both sides fall. Violence becomes the end in itself.


It's rare to see a consistent pacifist. So, you'd have been against WW2, against partisans/resistance movements taking up arms to defend themselves etc?


----------



## Spion (Sep 15, 2009)

.


----------



## Bakunin (Sep 15, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> I bet that's _exactly_ what Cheney said when he authorised the enhanced interrogation techniques.



So, someone disagrees with you and you compare them to Cheney? Pretty spurious, really, considering I was very active against a branch of Halliburton, when Cheney was in charge, for a number of years.

I don't actually like the use of force, you know. It's just that I recognise it as being sometimes necessary and, sometimes, the only thing that works as a last resort, when all other avenues have been exhausted.

Again, I'd like those who are resolutely against the use of properly targetted physical force anti-fascism to make some constructive suggestions as to what would work in its place, and I do mean actually work as opposed to people hiding in the comfort zone of their moral high ground.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 15, 2009)

Spion said:


> It's rare to see a consistent pacifist. So, you'd have been against WW2, against partisans/resistance movements taking up arms to defend themselves etc?



No I wouldn't, but when does something switch from being self-defence to direct offence? Is Bakunin's argument simply one of 'pre-emptive defence'? Do you think that because, subjectively, you think your cause is right that the ends always justify the meens? Where are the limits on the violence you would view as 'justified'? Where is the line of 'self defence' drawn?


----------



## _George (Sep 15, 2009)

Bakunin said:


> what would those who oppose matching them with their own methods propose?



ive actually never heard very much about far right types beating up the leaders of left wing parties


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 15, 2009)

> So, someone disagrees with you and you compare them to Cheney? Pretty spurious, really, considering I was very active against a branch of Halliburton, when Cheney was in charge, for a number of years.



No, all I was doing was making the point that you share a similar practical attitude to 'getting the job done'. Doesn't matter that you actively campaigned against Halliburton - you're still making the same argument about means and ends. This:#



> I don't actually like the use of force, you know. It's just that I recognise it as being sometimes necessary and, sometimes, the only thing that works as a last resort, when all other avenues have been exhausted.



How many idealists have started out saying this? 

All I'm saying is that as soon as you step onto the cycle of violence it becomes increasingly hard to get off it and the level of violence required rises.


----------



## gamma globulins (Sep 15, 2009)

In politics, once tarnished, never clean.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Sep 15, 2009)

Bakunin said:


> So, someone disagrees with you and you compare them to Cheney? Pretty spurious, really, considering I was very active against a branch of Halliburton, when Cheney was in charge, for a number of years.
> 
> I don't actually like the use of force, you know. It's just that I recognise it as being sometimes necessary and, sometimes, the only thing that works as a last resort, when all other avenues have been exhausted.
> 
> Again, I'd like those who are resolutely against the use of properly targetted physical force anti-fascism to make some constructive suggestions as to what would work in its place, and I do mean actually work as opposed to people hiding in the comfort zone of their moral high ground.


 your squirming.  There is a world of difference between saying, 
1. I'm not against the use of violence.
2. I am for an elite little group, attacking a fascist leaders, on behalf of the working class.


----------



## Bakunin (Sep 15, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> No, all I was doing was making the point that you share a similar practical attitude to 'getting the job done'. Doesn't matter that you actively campaigned against Halliburton - you're still making the same argument about means and ends. This:#
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm a practical person. When faced with a problem I look for practical solutions that will work, not cloud cuckoo land ideas that aren't likely to.

I'm not denying that the use of force has its risks, of course it does, but sometimes it's necessary, and sometimes it's the only thing that some people understand.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Sep 15, 2009)

_George said:


> ive actually never heard very much about far right types beating up the leaders of left wing parties


 heard of Adolf Hitler?


----------



## gamma globulins (Sep 15, 2009)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> ....on behalf of the working class.



On *percieved* behalf


----------



## Bakunin (Sep 15, 2009)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> your squirming.  There is a world of difference between saying,
> 1. I'm not against the use of violence.
> 2. I am for an elite little group, attacking a fascist leaders, on behalf of the working class.



I'm not squirming at all, my position is pretty clear as far as I can see.

And an accusation of squirming, coming from your good self, is somewhat out of place to put it mildly. And wasn't your beloved SWP (until it became expedient to dump the 'Squads' anyway) quite fond of using such tactics at one time? I don't recall the 'Squads' involving the entire party structure at any time, let alone the working class as a whole.


----------



## Spion (Sep 15, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> No I wouldn't, but when does something switch from being self-defence to direct offence?


In the case of dealing with fascists, I think defence is quite clearly the act of stopping them attacking/intimidating their targets, ie minorities, the left, labour movement. Offence, I guess begins when you target them away from these type of circumstances. 



kyser_soze said:


> Is Bakunin's argument simply one of 'pre-emptive defence'?


It looks a bit like that to me too



kyser_soze said:


> Do you think that because, subjectively, you think your cause is right that the ends always justify the meens?


No, I think the means should always be ones that strengthen the experience and organisation and solidarity of those that I support - the working classes, minority communities etc



kyser_soze said:


> Where are the limits on the violence you would view as 'justified'?


In defending yourself, sadly, there is no limit if the threat you face would wipe you out


----------



## gamma globulins (Sep 15, 2009)

> When faced with a problem I look for practical solutions that will work


.

So the practical solution is to kick the shit out of people on the far right. What benchmark are you setting for acheiving your aims. When will it end?

I'm sure they like to think of themselves as practical people too, after all....


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 15, 2009)

gamma globulins said:


> Yes. What could be wrong with mob-mediated physical violence against people who's political views you oppose?



Indeed. You could identify friends by you all wearing the same colour of shirt. Black or brown goes with most things.


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 15, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> Cable Street involved 100,000 people - men, women and children - against the BUF as they marched, escorted by Police, through the East End. Completely different situation to tit-for-tat targeting of a far-right leader who is known to resort to violence against his political opponents.



So you would have been against the assasanation of Hitler?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 15, 2009)

Who is this guy anyway?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Sep 15, 2009)

tbaldwin said:


> So you would have been against the assasanation of Hitler?


 unfortunately, yes.


----------



## Spion (Sep 15, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> All I'm saying is that as soon as you step onto the cycle of violence it becomes increasingly hard to get off it and the level of violence required rises.


I think this is a pacifist myth. Did the Allies continue rolling on and defeating country after country after they defeated Germany in WW2? Did all the guys who had dished out violence during WW2 come back and start being really violent in post-WW2 Britain?


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 15, 2009)

_George said:


> ive actually never heard very much about far right types beating up the leaders of left wing parties





ResistanceMP3 said:


> heard of Adolf Hitler?



McFadden, Merseyside TUC 


> A leading Merseyside trades unionist and anti-racist campaigner has been attacked at his home by a knifeman. Alex McFadden was almost blinded in the attack.
> A local reporter takes up the story:
> 
> Union boss slashed in face
> ...


http://randompottins.blogspot.com/2006/05/knife-attack-on-merseyside-trade.html


----------



## TremulousTetra (Sep 15, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Who is this guy anyway?


 he had only one testicle.  fact.

Lost it, in the First World War.  This led to him having the nickname of "screamer".  Says something about the First World War German soldiers sense of humour, doesn't it?


----------



## _George (Sep 15, 2009)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> heard of Adolf Hitler?



i have.  but rulers of alot of political persuaions have used violence to repress oposition.  that really isnt anything to do with modern british politics


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 15, 2009)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> What was the name of that fascist, assassinated a couple of years ago, I think he was in Holland.  FONTYN or something.
> 
> eta
> Pim Fortuyn
> ...



Hardly.
He was not a fascist for a start.


----------



## gamma globulins (Sep 15, 2009)

Spion said:


> I think this is a pacifist myth. Did the Allies continue rolling on and defeating country after country after they defeated Germany in WW2??



Yes, they beat Japan, and the Soviet Union occupied Eastern Europe.



More seriously the war caused a heavy economic burden. The UK couldn't afford to fight much further, and WWII directly contributed to the breakup of the British Empire. The US along with the USSR and (at the time) to a lesser extent China then began to dominate world affairs. The US still holds sway over a global empire, albeit a primarily economic one, or has that escaped your notice?


----------



## _George (Sep 15, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> McFadden, Merseyside TUC
> 
> http://randompottins.blogspot.com/2006/05/knife-attack-on-merseyside-trade.html



one could actually justify violence against trade unionists using the reasoning in this thread and the fact that trade unions have at times used violence to achieve there aims


----------



## DeepStoat (Sep 15, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> To explain my stance, I am a smallish female and I am not able or willing to use physical force.
> 
> You may as well call me 'a girl' instead of a 'liberal'



You don't need size or testicles to be involved in violent anti-fascisim.


----------



## Azrael (Sep 15, 2009)

Bakunin said:


> Well, if the fash are prepared to resort to violence (and they are if they can get away with it) what would those who oppose matching them with their own methods propose?


The same thing I'd propose for any violent criminal. Vigorous prosecution followed by prison at hard labour, or a hanging if they've committed murder. 

Fascists despise the rule of law. I don't see how abandoning it yourself helps fight them.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Sep 15, 2009)

tbaldwin said:


> Hardly.
> He was not a fascist for a start.



I get your point, but I don't think it invalidates the Point I was making.  His assassination, certainly encouraged the fascists.  In other words, it had to reverse effects to that which was intended, and what bakunin said.


----------



## DeepStoat (Sep 15, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Getting bolder eh deepstoat? All being taken for a ride aren't we?



Paranoid?


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 15, 2009)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I get your point, but I don't think it invalidates the Point I was making.  His assassination, certainly encouraged the fascists.  In other words, it had to reverse effects to that which was intended, and what bakunin said.



Do you think the assasanation of Hitler would have encouraged the nazis?


----------



## gamma globulins (Sep 15, 2009)

Possibly, depending on who stepped into his shoes. Another week of bombing british airfields would have finished us, but the Germans switched to bombing cities, a mistake which might have cost them the war.


----------



## _George (Sep 15, 2009)

Violence against the bnp would only increase sympathy for them while hindering the ''theyre thugs, dont vote for them''.

Remember this is politics, all about influencing the voter.  Thug tactics would influnece the voter away from those using them.


----------



## DeepStoat (Sep 15, 2009)

gamma globulins said:


> Possibly, depending on who stepped into his shoes. Another week of bombing british airfields would have finished us, but the Germans switched to bombing cities, a mistake which might have cost them the war.



There were plenty of decisions made that could of changed the outcome of the war.

One being if England backed the Republic of Spain during the civil war, allowed supplies to get through and even help defeat foreign german troops, which could of prevented WWII.

Now there's a bold statement butchersapron.


----------



## gamma globulins (Sep 15, 2009)

Well yes, sorry what I should have made clear is that switching from targetting our airfields to the blitz was a decision opposed by a large proportion of Hitler's generals, iirc. The advent of the bomb would probably have still settled it though.


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 15, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> Cable Street involved 100,000 people - men, women and children - against the BUF as they marched, escorted by Police, through the East End. Completely different situation to tit-for-tat targeting of a far-right leader who is known to resort to violence against his political opponents.



Not to my mind. It was part of the same thing MILITANT ANTI FASCISM.
Read Joe Jacobs In the Ghetto read Morris Beckmans book on the Jewish 43 group.
Why do you think Fascist leaders being targeted is worse than huge demos against them that give them huge publicity?


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 15, 2009)

_George said:


> Violence against the bnp would only increase sympathy for them while hindering the ''theyre thugs, dont vote for them''.
> 
> Remember this is politics, all about influencing the voter.  Thug tactics would influnece the voter away from those using them.




Help.....Help.....Its another mindless Liberal thinking their clever....


----------



## DeepStoat (Sep 15, 2009)

gamma globulins said:


> Well yes, sorry what I should have made clear is that switching from targetting our airfields to the blitz was a decision opposed by a large proportion of Hitler's generals, iirc. The advent of the bomb would probably have still settled it though.



Hermann Goring was up for continuing but I'm more concerned with the psychological impact of having their idol being made mortal.


----------



## gamma globulins (Sep 15, 2009)

He was a short dark Austrian proclaiming the superiority of tall blond Germans?


----------



## sonny61 (Sep 15, 2009)

Those advocating ''severe beating'', what does that actually mean?
A smack in the mouth I guess is not a severe beating.
So I presume the posters advocating this mean, stamping on someone's head,
powerful blows to the side of the head, smashing teeth out, stamping on the body to break bones and the breaking of limbs?

Weapons may have to be used I am presuming by those on here advocating severe beating. A knife? How far will the poster go who are advocating severe beating with a knife. Stabs to the face, the eyes, slashes to the face, stab to the body?

What about the use of some sort of club for those advocating serve beating?
Will that involve breaking legs and arms UVF style? Maybe going a bit further of clubing to the head? Will the posters advocating violence enjoy the screams of those they beat, because people do scream a lot when getting a ''severe beating'' no matter who the person is, brave or a coward.

Just wondering. BTW, do the police look at  threads like this?


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 15, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> Paranoid?



Shrewd


----------



## DeepStoat (Sep 15, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Just wondering. BTW, do the police look at  threads like this?



Are you plod?


----------



## sonny61 (Sep 15, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> Are you plod?




Why do you ask?


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 15, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Those advocating ''severe beating'', what does that actually mean?
> A smack in the mouth I guess is not a severe beating.
> So I presume the posters advocating this mean, stamping on someone's head,
> powerful blows to the side of the head, smashing teeth out, stamping on the body to break bones and the breaking of limbs?
> ...



All good questions Sonny.

The question of the use of violence is difficult but for me non violence can not be the only option in all cases in life and politics.
But your right to question to people about how far they would go.
Myself i think people should try and weigh up the possible impact of their actions. I also think there is always a danger of dehumanising your political opponents but sometimes i think violence is the best option. And for me that includes just about everything....


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 15, 2009)

tbaldwin said:


> Help.....Help.....Its another mindless Liberal thinking their clever....



Typical illiberally biased way of thinking from tbaldwin _again_


----------



## Spion (Sep 15, 2009)

This thread started a bit  and has now gone well weird with all the violence porn


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 15, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> Typical illiberally biased way of thinking from tbaldwin _again_



Crikey you have spotted a bias in my thinking......Shall i go and stand in the corner now?


----------



## sonny61 (Sep 15, 2009)

tbaldwin said:


> All good questions Sonny.
> 
> The question of the use of violence is difficult but for me non violence can not be the only option in all cases in life and politics.
> But your right to question to people about how far they would go.
> Myself i think people should try and weigh up the possible impact of their actions. I also think there is always a danger of dehumanising your political opponents but sometimes i think violence is the best option. And for me that includes just about everything....



Well thanks for your honesty.
I hate violence, I am not a pacifist and people are entitled to self defence.
Myself, I have seen enough violence in my life.


----------



## sonny61 (Sep 15, 2009)

Spion said:


> This thread started a bit  and has now gone well weird with all the violence porn



Those who have advocated violence on here, should tell us what they would actually do if they are so keen on it. Because a ''severe beating'' is a terrible thing to do to another human. I doubt many of them would actually do it.
I for one would only used  any form of violence in self defence, restraining techniques if possible where the least harm would be done to your attacker.
Then if possible get the police on your attacker. In real life the majority of people do not get attacked so have no need to be ever involved in violence, 

Those who have advocated violence on this thread should be aware they are treading on legal dodgy ground.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 15, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Who is this guy anyway?



Is he a Hammers fan?


----------



## Greenfish (Sep 15, 2009)

Self defence is one thing, beating the cunt out of people who don't share the same views as you is another.


----------



## DeepStoat (Sep 15, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Those who have advocated violence on here, should tell us what they would actually do if they are so keen on it.



Why are you so keen on people giving out information that may cause them problems?


----------



## DeepStoat (Sep 15, 2009)

Greenfish said:


> Self defence is one thing, beating the cunt out of people who don't share the same views as you is another.



Climate Camp that way ---->


----------



## Greenfish (Sep 15, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> Climate Camp that way ---->


<----obscurity that way.


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 15, 2009)

Greenfish said:


> Self defence is one thing, beating the cunt out of people who don't share the same views as you is another.



Agree it is far better to debate with them if you can. But if you cant what do you do? Just let them get on with organising? 
Fascism has usually grown not because the opposition have been too violent but too passive.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 15, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> I've known of one severe beating that stop one individual leader from continuing their involvment.
> 
> Why isn't their more targeting of them?
> 
> There's a lot of anti-fascists that squirrel away info on the far right, why isn't it used more to target significant people such as Collett et al?


i expect there are several reasons. firstly, given that 90% of ira operations were called off, it's clear that it isn't easy for even a well organised and motivated organisation to carry out their plans. second, it's not always easy to get people together to do social things. third, someone like collett is almost certain to vary his routine precisely to avoid the sort of attack you suggest. fourth, the amount of surveillance necessary to prepare for a hit would undoubtedly take a considerable amount of time. it's not like you can bowl up to his local on a friday and be sure he's there. and fifth, what's to be gained? even if the op went well, and no one was nicked, collett's frankly more of asset where he is, making the bnp look a crock of shit - it's along the lines of why ian paisley was never whacked.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 15, 2009)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> Agree it is far better to debate with them if you can. But if you cant what do you do? Just let them get on with organising?
> Fascism has usually grown not because the opposition have been too violent but too passive.







> The mountain troll is very stupid. It stands twelve feet tall, with grey skin, a lumpy body, and flat horny feet. It exudes a powerfully awful smell, "a mixture of old socks and the kind of public toilet no one seems to clean." Its nose is full of what looks like lumpy, gray glue: troll boogers


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 15, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Getting bolder eh deepstoat? All being taken for a ride aren't we?



my thoughts too


----------



## TremulousTetra (Sep 16, 2009)

tbaldwin said:


> Why do you think Fascist leaders being targeted is worse than huge demos against them that give them huge publicity?


 because the former is action from above, a tiny minority with balaclavas doing things on behalf of the working class,, where the latter is action from below, the working class taking their destiny into their hands.  I would have thought, you of all people, would have supported the latter.



tbaldwin said:


> Help.....Help.....Its another mindless Liberal thinking their clever....


 come on now! what he says is right, partially.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 16, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> I've known of one severe beating that stop one individual leader from continuing their involvment.
> 
> Why isn't their more targeting of them?
> 
> There's a lot of anti-fascists that squirrel away info on the far right, why isn't it used more to target significant people such as Collett et al?



example?


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 16, 2009)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> because the former is action from above, a tiny minority with balaclavas doing things on behalf of the working class,, where the latter is action from below, the working class taking their destiny into their hands.  I would have thought, you of all people, would have supported the latter.



Yeah i can see where your coming from.
But to me there is a case for doing what you think is right sometimes and not leaving it to mass action etc.
Sometimes people have to take the initiative to fix problems.

Militant anti fascism is fair enough as it goes. But like you durruti,butchers et etc i think the thing is building a realistic,credible political alternative.


----------



## behemoth (Sep 16, 2009)

Let's be honest.  The right have always been better at street violence than most of the left.  There are not many capable of carrying out such a policy.  You start attacking Nazi leaders at random and sooner or later you are likely to end up in hospital, or worse.  The real problem is the left have no effective response to the right's move away from street fighting to respectable politics.  What use are violent revolutionary fantasists who couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag, when the BNP are being elected into positions of power?


----------



## DeepStoat (Sep 16, 2009)

The39thStep said:


> example?



Engage brain before putting mouth in gear.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 16, 2009)

behemoth said:


> Let's be honest.  The right have always been better at street violence than most of the left.



You might want to read this







then reconsider


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 16, 2009)

behemoth said:


> Let's be honest.  The right have always been better at street violence than most of the left.  There are not many capable of carrying out such a policy.  You start attacking Nazi leaders at random and sooner or later you are likely to end up in hospital, or worse.  The real problem is the left have no effective response to the right's move away from street fighting to respectable politics.  What use are violent revolutionary fantasists who couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag, when the BNP are being elected into positions of power?



Not really true if you know the history of militant anti fascism in the UK.
I was involved firstly thru Afa in the 80s then with independents in the 90s.
There was loads of street battles in that time and the fascists were by and large totally shit at street fighting. The only thing they were good at was picking on wimps....


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 16, 2009)

Were you expelled from the SWP, tbaldwin? Were you a squadist?


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 16, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> Were you expelled from the SWP, tbaldwin? Were you a squadist?



the squads were expelled in the late 70's iirc


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 16, 2009)

81, afaik


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 16, 2009)

i stand corrected then


----------



## Bakunin (Sep 16, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> the squads were expelled in the late 70's iirc



While some of them were in the nick, IIRC.

Remarkable solidarity from the SWP on that score.

'What shall we do to support our jailed comrades in the class struggle, comrades? Organise some benefit nights and send them or their families the money? Flag up their cases in the hope of generating support? Set up a fighting fund to try and help with legal expenses?'

'Nope. Let's send them expulsion letters while they're currently incarcerated and unable to attend the expulsion hearings to plead their case. Not that pleading their case will do them any good as the outcome has already been decided anyway. That'll do nicely.'


----------



## behemoth (Sep 16, 2009)

tbaldwin said:


> Not really true if you know the history of militant anti fascism in the UK.
> I was involved firstly thru Afa in the 80s then with independents in the 90s.
> There was loads of street battles in that time and the fascists were by and large totally shit at street fighting. The only thing they were good at was picking on wimps....


That was not what I witnessed in the 80s.  And if they were so effective then why are the BNP in positions of power up and down the country, while the old left couldn't get elected to anything to save their lives.  The truth is the BNP are running rings round their opponents.  Pretending to be able to beat them up now is just frustration at your own failure.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 16, 2009)

behemoth said:


> That was not what I witnessed in the 80s.  And if they were so effective then why are the BNP in positions of power up and down the country, while the old left couldn't get elected to anything to save their lives.  The truth is the BNP are running rings round their opponents.  Pretending to be able to beat them up now is just frustration at your own failure.



You're very wrong.  The very reason that the BNP moved to electoral politics was that they got beaten on the streets.  It's what a lot of the discussions are about on here, the fallout from that.


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 16, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> Were you expelled from the SWP, tbaldwin? Were you a squadist?



Not expelled no.That was a bit before my time. Dont think id ever have got involved in the SWP.


----------



## Spion (Sep 16, 2009)

tbaldwin said:


> Not expelled no.That was a bit before my time. Dont think id ever have got involved in the SWP.


Red Action wasn't it? And now poacher turned gamekeeper?


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 16, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> Engage brain before putting mouth in gear.



is this addressed to me of to the infant agent provocateur in the o/p? It must be over a decade if not more since anyone could claim any of the fash retiring due to 'wear and tear'.


----------



## audiotech (Sep 16, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> - it's along the lines of why ian paisley was never whacked.



Somebody shot at him once and missed. It was reported that an air gun was used.


----------



## audiotech (Sep 16, 2009)

Bakunin said:


> While some of them were in the nick, IIRC.



Later expunged by AFA for links with searchlight.


----------



## Bakunin (Sep 16, 2009)

MC5 said:


> Later expunged by AFA for links with searchlight.



That's a tad disingenuous IIRC.

It also evades the issue, or tries to anyway and fails miserably IMHO, that the oh-so-revolutionary SWP left party members to rot in jail without offering much, if anything, in the way of aid and solidarity, because it was expedient for the leadership to do so.


----------



## audiotech (Sep 16, 2009)

Left to rot in Jail? He wasn't Papillon ffs.

An SWP member I knew once got so pissed he attacked a parked Rolls Royce - a weally wevolutionary act. He was followed by a member of the public who reported him to the police, who then arrested him. Went to court, where he narrowly avoided a custodial sentence. If he had been sent down I would have said serves the silly sod right for being drunk and then getting caught. There are times when you should take advice from your fellow comrades to avoid such endeavours.


----------



## Bakunin (Sep 16, 2009)

MC5 said:


> Left to rot in Jail? He wasn't Papillon ffs.
> 
> An SWP member I knew once got so pissed he attacked a parked Rolls Royce - a weally wevolutionary act. He was followed by a member of the public who reported him to the police, who then arrested him. Went to court, where he narrowly avoided a custodial sentence. If he had been sent down I would have said serves the silly sod right for being drunk and then getting caught. There are times when you should take advice from your fellow comrades to avoid such endeavours.



'Advice from your fellow comrades to avoid such endeavours.' 

Hmmm, interesting.

I could have sworn that it was the SWP that set up the 'Squads' in the first place. If the 'Squads' hadn't been formed then the chances are the Swappies would still be having their meetings turned over on a regular basis. In fact, as has been argued on this thread before, if the likes of the 'Squads' and AFA hadn't taken on and beaten the fash on the streets as effectively as they did, then I doubt the BNP would have made the turn to electoral politics at all.

As it is, the BNP are growing steadily in numbers and influence in their electoral work, while what did the left have? 

WESPECT and the Socialist Alliance, both resoundingly ruined by the actions of those self-appointed 'leaders of the wevolution' the SWP CC.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Sep 16, 2009)

Do people like the idea of using violence against the fash as they are easier to get at then our current leaders who are responsible for most of our woes? Of course it would be a lot harder to give the likes of Brown a good kicking.

I'm not fan of the likes of BNP, but using violence against them except for self defence seems pointless, when they are effectively powerless compared to those in Westminster. Maybe that's part of the appeal?


----------



## DeepStoat (Sep 16, 2009)

The39thStep said:


> It must be over a decade if not more since anyone could claim any of the fash retiring due to 'wear and tear'.



That's not true.


----------



## audiotech (Sep 16, 2009)

Bakunin said:


> ... if the likes of the 'Squads' and AFA hadn't taken on and beaten the fash on the streets as effectively as they did, then I doubt the BNP would have made the turn to electoral politics at all.



Victory!


----------



## audiotech (Sep 16, 2009)

Bakunin said:


> I could have sworn that it was the SWP that set up the 'Squads' in the first place.



That's right, before you were born probably and then a decision was made to close them down.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 17, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> That's not true.



In the know? Nudge Nudge geezer type of thing. Just exactly where has this war on the streets been waged then and with whom? Its fantasy island stuff.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 17, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> It's liberal ideas like that, which helped the NSDAP along.



There were running street battles between the SPD, KPD against the SA. The NSDAP was also banned and Hitler jailed. Its in jail that he wrote Mein Kampf and became a maytr for the far-right. So one could argue that street fighting and getting the state to ban far right groups was the stratege that allowed Nazis to rise to power.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 17, 2009)

moon23 said:


> There were running street battles between the SPD, KPD against the SA. The NSDAP was also banned and Hitler jailed. Its in jail that he wrote Mein Kampf and became a maytr for the far-right. So one could argue that street fighting and getting the state to ban far right groups was the stratege that allowed Nazis to rise to power.


you're missing out that the time he spent in the landsberg prison also allowed his rivals for leadership to makes wankers of themselves making it much easier to eliminate opposition after his release.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 17, 2009)

Bakunin said:


> 'Advice from your fellow comrades to avoid such endeavours.'
> 
> Hmmm, interesting.
> 
> ...


 Yes only the SWP have this quaint notion of 'da street' even the bone heads learnt the basics of media manipulation.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 17, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> you're missing out that the time he spent in the landsberg prison also allowed his rivals....


Yes im missing a lot out, writing a full history of the Nazi rise to power on my mobile is tricky  your right that is a factor but i think they would have been wankers regardless. Point is that it was more of a failing of political solutions rather than lack of street fighting (of which there was much) that helped the NSDAP. The left need to use thier brains


----------



## Balbi (Sep 17, 2009)

So violence dished out to the leaders of the far right in the 70's and 80's pushed them into seeking a more protected way of publicising their fascist ideology. So they all put on suits and went political and have, in comparison to the left done pretty well in capturing media and electoral votes compared to their opposition.

So why didn't AFA/ANL/UAF or whatever dive in after them? Because now it does look like the tactics which pushed the NF into the BNP and the ballot box are still being employed against them, which creates more media for them along the lines of 'No I am not a fascist. [insert statement to reassure political chops]. [insert statement dismissing the anti-fascist movement]'.

The reason a lot of people have been excited about the EDL is because they're not political, they're out on the streets and the tactics of opposition on the streets work because the EDL are basically a load of football hoolies with some half cracked political veneer over the top. And while UAF oppose the EDL on the streets, the BNP can shake their heads and point to the failing of the left and anti-fascist movement as a whole.

Hooray! 

No wait. Shit


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 17, 2009)

Anyone notice that its not the 1930s or indeed 1940s  or the 1970s? The BNP are doing very well precisley because 'anti fascists' wish we were in one of those decades where such tactics were applicable rather than fight politics with politics in working class communities


----------



## Balbi (Sep 17, 2009)

The39thStep said:


> Anyone notice that its not the 1930s or indeed 1940s  or the 1970s? The BNP are doing very well precisley because 'anti fascists' wish we were in one of those decades where such tactics were applicable rather than fight politics with politics in working class communities



So yeah, this is sort of what I said but gets to the point a bit quicker.

Another way of putting it is 'Harry Roberts is a pensioner'


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 17, 2009)

It's a diversion from the fact that we, as a country, have a general election coming up, and it's not a good time to be forced on the streets to oppose a racist rabble, as there's party policies to examine and respond to over the next nine months.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 17, 2009)

Bakunin said:


> Like the kind the likes of C18 were so fond of, you mean?
> 
> Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, as far as I'm concerned. I don't have a problem with physical force anti-fascism as long as it's correctly targetted.



then you're a fucking idiot.


----------



## DeepStoat (Sep 17, 2009)

The39thStep said:


> In the know? Nudge Nudge geezer type of thing. Just exactly where has this war on the streets been waged then and with whom? Its fantasy island stuff.



Nob end


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 17, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> Nob end



I imagine that you will also be an expert in that field as well.


----------



## DeepStoat (Sep 17, 2009)

The39thStep said:


> I imagine that you will also be an expert in that field as well.



A homophobe and a nob. Well done : )


----------



## invisibleplanet (Sep 17, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> A homophobe and a nob. Well done : )


----------



## moon23 (Sep 17, 2009)

The39thStep said:


> Anyone notice that its not the 1930s or indeed 1940s  or the 1970s? The BNP are doing very well precisley because 'anti fascists' wish we were in one of those decades where such tactics were applicable rather than fight politics with politics in working class communities



Spot on.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Sep 17, 2009)

The39thStep said:


> Anyone notice that its not the 1930s or indeed 1940s  or the 1970s? The BNP are doing very well precisley because 'anti fascists' wish we were in one of those decades where such tactics were applicable rather than fight politics with politics in working class communities





moon23 said:


> Spot on.


 the BNP are not doing well precisely because of the anti fascist, they are doing well despite the anti fascists.  Big difference.


----------



## Random (Sep 17, 2009)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> the BNP are not doing well precisely because of the anti fascist, they are doing well despite the anti fascists.  Big difference.



So you're saying that the millions of lefties in the UK stood no chance of really opposing the BNP?  Rather depressing imo.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Sep 17, 2009)

tbaldwin said:


> Yeah i can see where your coming from.
> But to me there is a case for doing what you think is right sometimes and not leaving it to mass action etc.
> Sometimes people have to take the initiative to fix problems.
> 
> Militant anti fascism is fair enough as it goes. But like you durruti,butchers et etc i think the thing is building a realistic,credible political alternative.


 which is precisely the reason, elitist groups with balaclavas are wrong, and mass anti-fascism is right.  Which is more likely to complement building a mass political alternative.  Obviously, building a mass anti fascist movement is complementary to building a mass political alternative.  Those masses who are naturally opposed to fascism, are more likely to be won to your logic as well.  That's where butchers etc is wrong.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Sep 17, 2009)

Random said:


> So you're saying that the millions of lefties in the UK stood no chance of really opposing the BNP?  Rather depressing imo.


 no I didn't say that.


----------



## Balbi (Sep 17, 2009)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> the BNP are not doing well precisely because of the anti fascist, they are doing well despite the anti fascists.  Big difference.



But the anti-fascists aren't opposing the BNP in the arena in which they now operate, merely aiding press generation for their political animal. So the BNP are doing well regardless of the anti-fascist movement


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2009)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> which is precisely the reason, elitist groups with balaclavas are wrong, and mass anti-fascism is right.  Which is more likely to complement building a mass political alternative.  Obviously, building a mass anti fascist movement is complementary to building a mass political alternative.  Those masses who are naturally opposed to fascism, are more likely to be won to your logic as well.  That's where butchers etc is wrong.



Sorry, where am i wrong?


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 17, 2009)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> which is precisely the reason, elitist groups with balaclavas are wrong, and mass anti-fascism is right.  Which is more likely to complement building a mass political alternative.  Obviously, building a mass anti fascist movement is complementary to building a mass political alternative.  Those masses who are naturally opposed to fascism, are more likely to be won to your logic as well.  That's where butchers etc is wrong.



I disagree rmp. Militant anti fascism is about targeting a problem not advertising it.
You look at how the BNP fell back in the 90s and you might think it was down to all those public displays by the likes of ARA,ANL,AFA etc but those public displays helped the BNP.
They helped them attract floating members of the far right like Griffin who had formerly been in the NF. They helped the BNP everytime they stood in an election to be seen as something worth talking about.

Your a`Socialist you should be talking about building a movement to oppose the excesses of capitalism not publicising fascist scum.


----------



## Nigel (Sep 17, 2009)

*Shit wind & piss*



ResistanceMP3 said:


> there is a world of difference between mass action of the working class, and an elitist group attacking a fascist leader on behalf of the working class.


Find it quite hypocritical to hear SWPer's go on about elitism. 
Aren't you lot the vanguard of the working class?
More like a group of Muppets who have had their not particularly succesful day!
Dust bin of History I think.


----------



## Nigel (Sep 17, 2009)

*Bash The Fash*



sonny61 said:


> Those advocating ''severe beating'', what does that actually mean?
> A smack in the mouth I guess is not a severe beating.
> So I presume the posters advocating this mean, stamping on someone's head,
> powerful blows to the side of the head, smashing teeth out, stamping on the body to break bones and the breaking of limbs?
> ...



Stop going on I'm getting a hard on


----------



## Nigel (Sep 17, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Those who have advocated violence on here, should tell us what they would actually do if they are so keen on it. Because a ''severe beating'' is a terrible thing to do to another human. I doubt many of them would actually do it.
> I for one would only used  any form of violence in self defence, restraining techniques if possible where the least harm would be done to your attacker.
> Then if possible get the police on your attacker. In real life the majority of people do not get attacked so have no need to be ever involved in violence,
> 
> Those who have advocated violence on this thread should be aware they are treading on legal dodgy ground.



Have you ever been in a fight or any form of physical confrontatation.
If so you would realise that outside of controlled clinical environments they are usually messy uncontrolable and unpredictable.

Best option, especially if you are not into it, is to get out of dodge or get in first hard & fast and then get out quickly.


----------



## Nigel (Sep 17, 2009)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> because the former is action from above, a tiny minority with balaclavas doing things on behalf of the working class,, where the latter is action from below, the working class taking their destiny into their hands.  I would have thought, you of all people, would have supported the latter.
> 
> come on now! what he says is right, partially.


How many people on UAF activities are working class?
They don't come across culturally as that!
They can hardly claim to be a mass working class movement!


----------



## rekil (Sep 17, 2009)

Just noticed this story from a couple of weeks ago. Briton assaulted by neo-Nazis in Hamburg.


> Members of the neo-Nazi National Democratic Party (NPD) attacked a dark-skinned British man in Hamburg over the weekend, beating him and dousing him with pepper spray after he tore up their election pamphlet.
> 
> The man had to be transported to the hospital in an ambulance, according to a police report on Monday.
> 
> ...



Candidates and election campaign workers from all parties were harrassed and assaulted in the last election and I'd be amazed if we didn't see more of the same sort of thing happening in the run up to the upcoming one, in addition to the routine assaults on their usual targets.


----------



## Nigel (Sep 17, 2009)

The39thStep said:


> In the know? Nudge Nudge geezer type of thing. Just exactly where has this war on the streets been waged then and with whom? Its fantasy island stuff.


Several attacks against BPP as far as I am aware!


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 17, 2009)

Nigel said:


> How many people on UAF activities are working class?
> They don't come across culturally as that!
> They can hardly claim to be a mass working class movement!


they can hardly claim to be a mass middle class movement


----------



## Nigel (Sep 17, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> they can hardly claim to be a mass middle class movement


How would you describe them?


----------



## sonny61 (Sep 17, 2009)

Nigel said:


> Have you ever been in a fight or any form of physical confrontatation.
> If so you would realise that outside of controlled clinical environments they are usually messy uncontrolable and unpredictable.
> 
> Best option, especially if you are not into it, is to get out of dodge or get in first hard & fast and then get out quickly.



Yes, plenty. I was talking of being attack by an individual, or with a very small number of people involved in a fight(the thread seems to be talking about attacking lone people). I always found it easy to kick feet from under people and watch them go flying.

Your take on how most fights go is correct. And your best option is very good. In reality in large mob fights most people won't even throw a punch, and those what are thrown are not that much. 90% of people can't fight or know how to throw a punch. In mob fights the biggest danger is getting parted from your own side and meeting the other side on your own or falling over if your side run.

In most mob fights one side will run, not very often a mob come together and slug it out. Mob fights tend to be a game of chase me. 
Some of the real nasty violence comes when very small groups meet each other away from the police.
I don't consider it a fight when you have 20 men kicking one man on his own on the floor. Any weedy wanker can do that.

The number of times I have seen groups of men who are out for a ruck with a happy look on their faces when the police arrive and stop any potential trouble, although they would never admit it.
Best advice is to stay away from violence if you can, and stay within the law.


----------



## Nigel (Sep 17, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Yes, plenty. I was talking of being attack by an individual, or with a very small number of people involved in a fight(the thread seems to be talking about attacking lone people). I always found it easy to kick feet from under people and watch them go flying.
> 
> Your take on how most fights go is correct. And your best option is very good. In reality in large mob fights most people won't even throw a punch, and those what are thrown are not that much. 90% of people can't fight or know how to throw a punch. In mob fights the biggest danger is getting parted from your own side and meeting the other side on your own or falling over if your side run.
> 
> ...



Depends how much they are up for it so I've been told.
Officer


----------



## Balbi (Sep 17, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Yes, plenty. I was talking of being attack by an individual, or with a very small number of people involved in a fight(the thread seems to be talking about attacking lone people). I always found it easy to kick feet from under people and watch them go flying.
> 
> Your take on how most fights go is correct. And your best option is very good. In reality in large mob fights most people won't even throw a punch, and those what are thrown are not that much. 90% of people can't fight or know how to throw a punch. In mob fights the biggest danger is getting parted from your own side and meeting the other side on your own or falling over if your side run.
> 
> ...



Plod or sad fantasist, or both?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 17, 2009)

Nigel said:


> How would you describe them?


uaf? useless scum, imho


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 18, 2009)

Nigel said:


> Several attacks against BPP as far as I am aware!



Wow!


----------



## moon23 (Sep 18, 2009)

Focusing energy on fighting with the facists on the street rather than actually working withing working class communtites is a mistake. EDL are a front to distract the left and make the BNP look more respectable.  Noticed how since the EDLIts formed the BNP have been on a charity donation drive? clears the way for the BNP who are portraying themselves as working with working class interests are ahead so get out there with your brothers and sisters and form a group that does something practical to help poor working people turning to the right so them a vision of the left and a bright future rather than one of division and hate. Press release that whilst the EDL are out causing trouble you are supporting people.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 18, 2009)

At best the left can organise a unity gig or party thats fine but where is the bread and butter solidarity. Why are most activrts good at selling papers, waving banners and protesting but so bad at helping people? Why do those running drop in advice centres, helping with odd jobs, cleaning up rubbish outnumbered. Why do the BNP get points for donating to an Owl sanctuary whilst the left call for the state to ban marches?


----------



## Badger Kitten (Sep 18, 2009)

This is a depressing thread: who wants to be associated with a group or a person that thinks ''dishing out'' beatings to people because of their politics is a good idea?

Massive fail.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 18, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Why do the BNP get points for donating to an Owl sanctuary whilst the left call for the state to ban marches?


eh? who? where?


----------



## moon23 (Sep 18, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> eh? who? where?



It's a Hoot at the Owls Sanctuary:
http://bnp.org.uk/tag/bird-sanctuary/

This is the point whilst anti-facists are out fighting the EDL the BNP are busy distancing themselves and trying to make themselves look even more respectable. 

Meanwhile Hope not Hate launch a campaign for people to lobby Leeds city council to ask for the EDL march planned on the 31st October to be banned. Wouldn’t they be better off looking to do something more positive and practical that might actually encourage some hope amongst working people?


----------



## DeepStoat (Sep 18, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> This is a depressing thread: who wants to be associated with a group or a person that thinks ''dishing out'' beatings to people because of their politics is a good idea?
> 
> Massive fail.



It's not their privately held bigotry that's the problem it's what they do and plan.

I'd sooner have a couple of fascists have a good hiding than have them actively organising racial attacks.


----------



## Nigel (Sep 18, 2009)

But if they don't want to play, what can you do!
More than likely there will be individuals, groups, who will organise racist/homophobic/ sexist etc.attacks, similar to W#D#F# in the NF in the 1970's and early 1980's. However they may do this as small clandestine cells.
Not out in the open. Trying to link these people directly to the BNP, especially these days would be very difficult; As David Copeland Saga shows.

As far as the EDL goes no one seems to be attacking them(not necessarily physically) for their, what seems to be sympathy with military conflict in Afghanistan, occupation of Iraq & the whole 'War Against Terror' scenario, with their 'Our Boys' right or wrong line, as some how being succesful. This would probably be more constructive than playing the  'race' card and comparing them to the BUF in the 1930's.

Both the left, BNP & anyone with any common sense are opposed to these military interventions and see them as being unsuccesful.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Sep 18, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> It's not their privately held bigotry that's the problem it's what they do and plan.
> 
> I'd sooner have a couple of fascists have a good hiding than have them actively organising racial attacks.




Organising racial attacks - or politically motivated beatings - is a crime, and one that should be reported, if it is likely to go further than fantasising on the internet.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 18, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> This is a depressing thread: who wants to be associated with a group or a person that thinks ''dishing out'' beatings to people because of their politics is a good idea?
> 
> Massive fail.



Its also a comfortable diversion from actually discussing how to beat the BNP. although in some posters views apparantly attcking the irrelevant, minute , state infiltrated BPP is more of a  barometer of anti fascist success.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 18, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> Organising racial attacks - or politically motivated beatings - is a crime, and one that should be reported, if it is likely to go further than fantasising on the internet.



Probably no need to report it, wouldn't surpise me if fuzz are baiting boards to see who likely trouble makers are allready anyway.


----------



## DeepStoat (Sep 18, 2009)

Yep the plod have a great reputation for promoting racial harmony.

Silly me.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 18, 2009)

moon23 said:


> It's a Hoot at the Owls Sanctuary:
> http://bnp.org.uk/tag/bird-sanctuary/
> 
> This is the point whilst anti-facists are out fighting the EDL the BNP are busy distancing themselves and trying to make themselves look even more respectable.
> ...


would this be the same hope not hate supported by all the main parliamentary parties? how did you come to the conclusion that that is "the left"? you haven't mentioned that the government have banned marches in luton, without any left-wing groups i'm aware of demanding same.


----------



## Nigel (Sep 18, 2009)

The39thStep said:


> Its also a comfortable diversion from actually discussing how to beat the BNP. although in some posters views apparantly attcking the irrelevant, minute , state infiltrated BPP is more of a  barometer of anti fascist success.



For any form of 'militant' anti fascist activity to be succesful a continuity of practice is most probably necessary, from what i've heard.

Militant Anti Fascist mobilisation against Far Right in Feltham in late 1990's may not have been as succesful as could have been because of a break off in momentum, so I've been told


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 18, 2009)

Nigel said:


> For any form of 'militant' anti fascist activity to be succesful a continuity of practice is most probably necessary, from what i've heard.
> 
> Militant Anti Fascist mobilisation against Far Right in Feltham in late 1990's may not have been as succesful as could have been because of a break off in momentum, so I've been told



why is there a need for a continuity of practise when it is obvious that it isn't working?


----------



## JimPage (Sep 18, 2009)

Nigel said:


> For any form of 'militant' anti fascist activity to be succesful a continuity of practice is most probably necessary, from what i've heard.
> 
> Militant Anti Fascist mobilisation against Far Right in Feltham in late 1990's may not have been as succesful as could have been because of a break off in momentum, so I've been told




I would  rather put it down to the realisation that the tactics of the 1990s and before were not going to work in the long run against a political, Euronationalist BNP

It was also a responsible act of leadership, recognising that the surveilance state made such actions nigh impossible, or at too high a price in terms of jailings of activists

I dont ascribe to democratic nonsense about freedom of speech, but dont think its an act of responsiblity to do things i am no longer prepared to do myself


----------



## THINK! (Sep 18, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> I've known of one severe beating that stop one individual leader from continuing their involvment.
> 
> Why isn't their more targeting of them?
> 
> There's a lot of anti-fascists that squirrel away info on the far right, why isn't it used more to target significant people such as Collett et al?



Who's that?


----------



## moon23 (Sep 18, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> would this be the same hope not hate supported by all the main parliamentary parties? how did you come to the conclusion that that is "the left"? you haven't mentioned that the government have banned marches in luton, without any left-wing groups i'm aware of demanding same.



And UAF are not left wing either?

http://www.uaf.org.uk/

As Ken Livingstone, chair of Unite Against Fascism and former mayor of London, said last week in response to the EDL's aborted march on Harrow Central Mosque: _"If anyone were to call a demonstration outside a synagogue or church, this would rightly provoke a national outcry.

"There should be exactly the same response from the government, politicians, all religious faiths and the media to the call for a demonstration outside a mosque. The only possible meaning of this event is a protest against Muslims and Islam – a religion followed by more than a billion people in the world.

"People should wake up to the fact the protests outside mosques are taking us back to the fascism of the 1930s when fascist thugs marched against Jews and their places of worship. These demonstration should be condemned and banned on the grounds of blatant religious discrimination and a threat to public order."_

Also a Respect councillor Salma Yaqoob, who expected more street violence if EDL returned. “When it comes to public safety we have every right to intervene,” she said. (in supporting a ban).

Of course not everyone on the left agrees but SWP organizers are supporting the strategy of state bans and so are Hope not Hate and UAF.


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 18, 2009)

moon23 said:


> As Ken Livingstone, chair of Unite Against Fascism and former mayor of London, said last week in response to the EDL's aborted march on Harrow Central Mosque: _"If anyone were to call a demonstration outside a synagogue or church, this would rightly provoke a national outcry.
> 
> "There should be exactly the same response from the government, politicians, all religious faiths and the media to the call for a demonstration outside a mosque. The only possible meaning of this event is a protest against Muslims and Islam – a religion followed by more than a billion people in the world.
> 
> _


_

I dont remember him saying this when they were outside the finsbury park mosque all those nights....._


----------



## Nigel (Sep 18, 2009)

The39thStep said:


> why is there a need for a continuity of practise when it is obvious that it isn't working?


The high possibility that they will eventually see the necessity to turn to 'taking the streets' and/or other physical confrontational tactics to acheive their ends.

I am not active in Antifa, you are probably better off discussing it with someone who is, however the need & tradition of militant anti fascism has not been completely outmoded in my opinion and support of it is paramount.

A major proportion of the strategy & theory of the political soldier wing that Griffin et al came out of and in my opinion is still part of has a foundation in Strasserism; the foundation of which is the Sturmabteilung.

Of course it would be naive and crude to historically compare Germany in the 1930's to the BNP today, however as the wevolutionary left basis itself on a myth system around the Russian Revolution the Far Right similarly mythologise around Germany in the 1930's as Collet portrayed in the documentary Young Nazi & Proud(I think), & Griffins Grandoise of Romanian Fascists.


----------



## Nigel (Sep 18, 2009)

JimPage said:


> I would  rather put it down to the realisation that the tactics of the 1990s and before were not going to work in the long run against a political, Euronationalist BNP
> 
> It was also a responsible act of leadership, recognising that the surveilance state made such actions nigh impossible, or at too high a price in terms of jailings of activists
> 
> I dont ascribe to democratic nonsense about freedom of speech, but dont think its an act of responsiblity to do things i am no longer prepared to do myself


To be honest I sympathise with what you are saying, sidelining yourself with BNP with what this government is doing to this country. The main adversary is The government, the neo liberal agenda, privitisation and anti working class/lower classes policies. And the only way you are going to take on the BNP at this stage is to politically, beating their ideas and agenda in the hearts and minds of people they claim to be representing.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2009)

Nigel said:


> The high possibility that they will eventually see the necessity to turn to 'taking the streets' and/or other physical confrontational tactics to acheive their ends.



There is _no such high necessity_. None whatsoever. It's fantasy feeding on puffed up fantasy. They have no intention of turning their back on the tactics that have brought them unprecedented success - and the hyerbolic nonsense that's floating around around at the minute about the very nature of fascism being to crush the (non-existent) workers movement and control of 'the streets' (ffs) _should_ actually serve only to underline the fantastic nature of this sort of losing-the-plot analysis by virtue of its self-evident distance from concrete reality. 

It's good for looking militant and regaining lost ground within the left milieu or for attracting fresh blood - (_you too could stop Hitler!_) but it falls far short of what's really happening, never mind understanding why it's happening.


----------



## ALondonStation (Sep 18, 2009)

^^ a few posts up.

Don't these direct action anti-fascist groups spend as much time fighting one another? Red London, AFA/Antifa and the Bash Street Kids (kidding about the last one)?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Sep 18, 2009)

tbaldwin said:


> I disagree rmp. Militant anti fascism is about targeting a problem not advertising it.
> You look at how the BNP fell back in the 90s and you might think it was down to all those public displays by the likes of ARA,ANL,AFA etc but those public displays helped the BNP.
> They helped them attract floating members of the far right like Griffin who had formerly been in the NF. They helped the BNP everytime they stood in an election to be seen as something worth talking about.
> 
> Your a`Socialist you should be talking about building a movement to oppose the excesses of capitalism not publicising fascist scum.



RE-read;


ResistanceMP3 said:


> which is precisely the reason, elitist groups with balaclavas are wrong, and mass anti-fascism is right.  Which is more likely to complement building a mass political alternative.  Obviously, building a mass anti fascist movement is complementary to building a mass political alternative.  Those masses who are naturally opposed to fascism, are more likely to be won to your logic as well.  That's where butchers etc is wrong.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Sep 18, 2009)

Nigel said:


> Find it quite hypocritical to hear SWPer's go on about elitism.


 balaclava elitists, acting on behalf of the working class.  Take it on the chin, you're wrong if you support this, instead of acting like Don Quixote, tilting at windmills.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2009)

I'll ask you again as you ignored my question yesterday in favour of repeating the post for some reason - _where am i going wrong?_ (esp odd given that i've only ten minutes ago made my first proper contribution to the thread.)


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 18, 2009)

RPM3....I really think the point you missed is i totally disagree about building a mass anti fascist movement.
I would like to see a mass democratic socialist movement with positive ideas not a large movement concentrating on a negative.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 18, 2009)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> balaclava elitists, acting on behalf of the working class.  Take it on the chin, you're wrong if you support this, instead of acting like Don Quixote, tilting at windmills.


i seem to recall the swp supporting the notion of committees of 100 during the anti-poll tax movement, local dignitaries who would refuse to pay the poll tax. if it was right for people to act on behalf of the working class then, why isn't it now?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 18, 2009)

moon23 said:


> And UAF are not left wing either?
> 
> http://www.uaf.org.uk/
> 
> ...


personally i don't think ken livingstone is left-wing. and david cameron, a member of uaf, certainly isn't. as for the ruc, i've never thought them a particularly left-wing organisation either


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 18, 2009)

btw, i don't remember a "national outcry" when the fash demonstrated outside finsbury park mosque.


----------



## durruti02 (Sep 18, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Focusing energy on fighting with the facists on the street rather than actually working withing working class communtites is a mistake. EDL are a front to distract the left and make the BNP look more respectable.  Noticed how since the EDLIts formed the BNP have been on a charity donation drive? clears the way for the BNP who are portraying themselves as working with working class interests are ahead so get out there with your brothers and sisters and form a group that does something practical to help poor working people turning to the right so them a vision of the left and a bright future rather than one of division and hate. Press release that whilst the EDL are out causing trouble you are supporting people.


 yes ^^^


----------



## audiotech (Sep 18, 2009)

The "unprecedented success" of the BNP Butchers keeps on about is of course on the back of media hysteria, a gutless Labour government, leading to the collapse of the Labour vote and voter apathy generally.

The BNP's tactic, if it ever had one, has been mainly standing in elections and scooping up the rewards of all this. The left, leaving out the media hysteria, has attempted to do similar, SP, Respect, SLP, Left List and whilst there's been some success, most have not been able to match the BNP in electoral terms, apart from the Green Party, who have and more so.

If we switch to your favourite pet subject, class, I don't see a great impact in working class areas, certainly not on the same scale as the NF had at it's height. As I see it, Barnsley, Stoke, Barking and Dagenham are not about to succumb to BNP incompetence any time soon.

There have also been setbacks for the BNP, in Burnley, Oldham, Sandwell and in parts of Yorkshire, so not the "unprecedented success" they were expecting. The two seats in the European elections were the life boat for the leadership. No guarantee they'll see land, never mind take over institutions

I'm not certain how this will play out, but recent elections suggests the BNP vote is now falling. Not sure if that will be a permanent feature? So no room for complacency here.

Important to understand that the tactical choices available to the BNP now are limited. No more stunts, it's all about electoral respectability and beavering away at the institutions for them. Let's be clear, their organisational structure is weak and they are nowhere near becoming a mass party.


----------



## durruti02 (Sep 18, 2009)

moon23 said:


> At best the left can organise a unity gig or party thats fine but where is the bread and butter solidarity. Why are most activrts good at selling papers, waving banners and protesting but so bad at helping people? Why do those running drop in advice centres, helping with odd jobs, cleaning up rubbish outnumbered. Why do the BNP get points for donating to an Owl sanctuary whilst the left call for the state to ban marches?


 yes yes yes ^^^


----------



## audiotech (Sep 18, 2009)

Owl sanctury?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Sep 18, 2009)

tbaldwin said:


> RPM3....I really think the point you missed is i totally disagree about building a mass anti fascist movement.
> I would like to see a mass democratic socialist movement with positive ideas not a large movement concentrating on a negative.


 so would I.  the two are not mutually exclusive.  In fact, I believe, they are complementary.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Sep 18, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> yes yes yes ^^^


 socialists or anarchists?  I thought socialists, whilst not ignoring community, concentrated on the point of production.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 19, 2009)

MC5 said:


> Owl sanctury?



Don't ask me the Fash like Owls innit.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 19, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> personally i don't think ken livingstone is left-wing. and david cameron, a member of uaf, certainly isn't. as for the ruc, i've never thought them a particularly left-wing organisation either



Nor Respect coun Salma Yaqoob? Well it's a rubbish termnology really isn't it.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 19, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> I've known of one severe beating that stop one individual leader from continuing their involvment.
> 
> Why isn't their more targeting of them?
> 
> There's a lot of anti-fascists that squirrel away info on the far right, why isn't it used more to target significant people such as Collett et al?



A few hundred posts and posting threads like this?  

I'd say either you're a fash or a total idiot.


----------



## DeepStoat (Sep 19, 2009)

So having made thousands of posts on a BB you have 'authority' to post what you like?

What else does it qualify you to do?


----------



## Balbi (Sep 19, 2009)

Well, there's the t-shirt you get at 1,000 posts. Access to the secret forum at 10,000 and if like me you reach 20,000 or more you gain the ability to lose all contact with people outside of the internet and live on a diet of domino's pizza meal deals.

But yeah, DS you do seem a bit of a dinny.


----------



## JimPage (Sep 21, 2009)

MC5 said:


> I'm not certain how this will play out, but recent elections suggests the BNP vote is now falling. Not sure if that will be a permanent feature? So no room for complacency here.
> 
> Important to understand that the tactical choices available to the BNP now are limited. No more stunts, it's all about electoral respectability and beavering away at the institutions for them. Let's be clear, their organisational structure is weak and they are nowhere near becoming a mass party.



Whiel their by election results sicne June 2009 have been poor, there has been a tactical change in that they no longer seem to import activists and fight every council by election like they were going to win in, tying up regional resources for weeks in order to get a 15% vote. They will concentrate on where they can win, like the South Oxhey election this thursday

As to their organisational structure, would disagree . As a result of the euro election results they have been able to put most of their fulltimers on the euro payroll - as well as paying Brons and Griffins salary (Simon Darby, Eddy Butler, the Wingfields, Chris Beverley, Clive Jefferson and more) - as well as finally getting 2 new people on the payroll at the GLA to keep Barnbrook in line. They will this week open their NW office, again paid for by Europe 

All in all . It seems to have been consolidation since the euros, and the reorganisation needed for the 2010 general election


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 21, 2009)

MC5 said:


> The "unprecedented success" of the BNP Butchers keeps on about is of course on the back of media hysteria, a gutless Labour government, leading to the collapse of the Labour vote and voter apathy generally.
> 
> The BNP's tactic, if it ever had one, has been mainly standing in elections and scooping up the rewards of all this. The left, leaving out the media hysteria, has attempted to do similar, SP, Respect, SLP, Left List and whilst there's been some success, most have not been able to match the BNP in electoral terms, apart from the Green Party, who have and more so.
> 
> ...



32 out of the 35 areas where the BNP gained more than 5% in the  2005 general election are  constituencies which have Labour party incumbents, areas characterised by high employment rates, low attainment rates and above average Pakistani and African populations. Labour voter profiles show a similar class , age and educational distribution to BNP supporters.

The NF vote in the 70s was very different 62% of its support came from the South of England, it also had support in West Midlands. In London it centred on Haringey, Islington, Tower Hamlets . The NF had nothing in the Yorkshire or Lancashire , the former with Humberside now accounts for 20% of BNP support but is only 10% of the voting population


----------



## Badger Kitten (Sep 21, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> btw, i don't remember a "national outcry" when the fash demonstrated outside finsbury park mosque.



Everyone and his wife has demonstrated outside Finsbury Park Mosque at one time or another for one reason or another.

Apart from the security services. They just watched.


----------



## audiotech (Sep 21, 2009)

JimPage said:


> Whiel their by election results sicne June 2009 have been poor, there has been a tactical change in that they no longer seem to import activists and fight every council by election like they were going to win in, tying up regional resources for weeks in order to get a 15% vote. They will concentrate on where they can win, like the South Oxhey election this thursday
> 
> As to their organisational structure, would disagree . As a result of the euro election results they have been able to put most of their fulltimers on the euro payroll - as well as paying Brons and Griffins salary (Simon Darby, Eddy Butler, the Wingfields, Chris Beverley, Clive Jefferson and more) - as well as finally getting 2 new people on the payroll at the GLA to keep Barnbrook in line. They will this week open their NW office, again paid for by Europe
> 
> All in all . It seems to have been consolidation since the euros, and the reorganisation needed for the 2010 general election



Shore up I would say.


----------



## audiotech (Sep 21, 2009)

The39thStep said:


> 32 out of the 35 areas where the BNP gained more than 5% in the  2005 general election are  constituencies which have Labour party incumbents, areas characterised by high employment rates, low attainment rates and above average Pakistani and African populations. Labour voter profiles show a similar class , age and educational distribution to BNP supporters.
> 
> The NF vote in the 70s was very different 62% of its support came from the South of England, it also had support in West Midlands. In London it centred on Haringey, Islington, Tower Hamlets . The NF had nothing in the Yorkshire or Lancashire , the former with Humberside now accounts for 20% of BNP support but is only 10% of the voting population



I was comparing the activist base, what I've seen of it at least, rather than actual votes.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 21, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> Everyone and his wife has demonstrated outside Finsbury Park Mosque at one time or another for one reason or another.
> 
> Apart from the security services. They just watched.



And the rest.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 21, 2009)

MC5 said:


> I was comparing the activist base, what I've seen of it at least, rather than actual votes.



So you're talking about a tiny tiny % and using it to draw general nationwide conclusions. Can you see the problem? 

How's your BNP MEP btw?


----------



## audiotech (Sep 21, 2009)

How would I know, as there's no BNP MEP been elected this side of the pennines?

I hope both twats are very ill as it 'appens.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 21, 2009)

Is that right? You've not got a BNP MEP? Is that really right?


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 21, 2009)

MC5 said:


> I was comparing the activist base, what I've seen of it at least, rather than actual votes.




I can give you more on that if you really want it?


----------



## audiotech (Sep 21, 2009)

The cunt doesn't represent me personally, no. Wasn't even born here. German ancestry.


----------



## audiotech (Sep 21, 2009)

The39thStep said:


> I can give you more on that if you really want it?



Only if it increases my knowledge base?


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 21, 2009)

MC5 said:


> Only if it increases my knowledge base?



It would but it contradicts a lot of what you have said .


----------



## audiotech (Sep 21, 2009)

I'm not surprised by that.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 21, 2009)

MC5 said:


> The cunt doesn't represent me personally, no. Wasn't even born here. German ancestry.



So you actually mean yes you dio have a BNP MEP now you've manged to remember where you live.


----------



## audiotech (Sep 21, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> So you actually mean yes you dio have a BNP MEP now you've manged to remember where you live.



Only when there's an 'R' in the month.


----------

