# S T W C -- Shame On You!



## IntoStella (Jul 26, 2005)

Ever since the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, I have tried hard to be non partisan, despite my historic intense dislike of trots, because I believe the left should pull together.

But the so called vigil for Jean Charles de Menezes, ''organised'' (pah) by "Lambeth STWC" last night at Stockwell tube station was a mortifying disgrace.

STWC had clearly forgotten what they were there for and didn't want to let Menezes's family and friends, or members of the Brazilian community, say their piece. 

Instead we were subjected the usual screaming, ranting, spit-drenching robotrot bollocks, hijacking what should have been a highly sensitive and dignified event  -- as treelover predicted, I must admit.  

For god's sake, it was only three days since de Menezes was gunned down. 

Hand on heart, I have never seen the left made to look so shambolic, so stupid, so insensitive and so inhuman. 

I don't usually get stuck into the usual old p&p battles but I felt physically sick. Decent people were leaving in droves.

Shame on those who perpetrated this disgusting shambles.


----------



## kropotkin (Jul 26, 2005)

Ah, so you stayed then!


----------



## knopf (Jul 26, 2005)

I'm glad (and relieved) I didn't go now. I thought to myself, "Shall I give 'em a chance to prove me wrong? Nah. Fuck 'em." Looks like I was right. Something that it gives me no pleasure to say.


----------



## kropotkin (Jul 26, 2005)

It was horrible- really exploitative. And such terrible politics- people waving "Victory to the Resistance!" placards, loads of paper sellers, a STWC guy with a megaphone talking over a group of Brazilians...

I left as soon as I relaised that it was going down this road. I too was very disapointed, and left feeling quite sad


----------



## In Bloom (Jul 26, 2005)




----------



## IntoStella (Jul 26, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> Ah, so you stayed then!


Yeah, you left at the right time -- ie as soon as possible.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 26, 2005)

> Menezes's family and friends, or members of the Brazilian community, say their piece.


Were the cousins there listening all the way through the repetitive, ranting speeches?


----------



## chegrimandi (Jul 26, 2005)

fucking bunch of cunts.

My only dealings with the swapsters was in camden road once when I was bored waiting for someone they accosted me and as I had time to kill said I didn't mind talking to them. I was perfect target audience - this twat ranted at me for about 30 minutes about stuff i'd never heard about because I was too young, then after 30 minutes said what do you think, I just walked off saying I don't think you're interested in my opinion...

clueless knob. 

disliked them ever since.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 26, 2005)

swc = scum.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 26, 2005)

Even when they have the ball at their feet they still manage to score an own goal


----------



## knopf (Jul 26, 2005)

Well this thread has been up almost an hour & no baby trotlets have appeared to justify STWC's disgraceful behaviour..........


----------



## rednblack (Jul 26, 2005)

i nearly went to this, glad i didnt now

utterly disgusting and opportunisitc as usual, i bet they were glad the poor bloke was gunned down - another bandwagon for them to hijack


----------



## chegrimandi (Jul 26, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> i nearly went to this, glad i didnt now
> 
> utterly disgusting and opportunisitc as usual, i bet they were glad the poor bloke was gunned down - another bandwagon for them to hijack



who decrees/why do they think this level of opportunism is attractive? do they not think people find it disgusting/cheap in the extreme? are they just clueless or obscenely thick?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 26, 2005)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> who decrees/why do they think this level of opportunism is attractive? do they not think people find it disgusting/cheap in the extreme? are they just clueless or obscenely thick?


they're worse than that.


----------



## treelover (Jul 26, 2005)

as treelover predicted, I must admit   

I did predict it but i really didn't think it would be quite that bad, do they ever learn anything?, these people. I think not allowing the Brazilians the chance to speak is disgusting and i really wish there was a way of censoring/isolating these idiots. There are reports on indymedia of the 'vigil'  with none of the real story, perhaps attendees could post the truth up


----------



## chegrimandi (Jul 26, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> they're worse than that.



who suggests its a good idea though? how can they think its a good idea?


----------



## rednblack (Jul 26, 2005)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> who suggests its a good idea though? how can they think its a good idea?



their full time central committee who like all bureaucracies are so far away from day to day realities they forget how normal people think


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 26, 2005)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> who suggests its a good idea though? how can they think its a good idea?


they are deluded party-builders who think that they have the holy grail of politics, which they don't. they listen to every utterance of their foul central committee, no matter how fuckwitted, like it was the oracle at delphi.


----------



## mk12 (Jul 26, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> utterly disgusting and opportunisitc as usual



You didn't even go


----------



## knopf (Jul 26, 2005)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> You didn't even go



If you _did_ go, matt, tell us why it _wasn't_ utterly disgraceful & opportunistic.


----------



## treelover (Jul 26, 2005)

That still doesnt explain their individual behaviour, surely humanity and common sense suggests you let the bereaved have their say.

i dont think the Communist party in their heyday would have behaved like this, i'm not sure even the RCP would of, it's wrong and everyone should hear of it.

can someone post a detailed report with names, etc.



'They are deluded party-builders who think that they have the holy grail of politics, which they don't. they listen to every utterance of their foul central committee, no matter how fuckwitted, like it was the oracle at delphi.


----------



## mk12 (Jul 26, 2005)

knopf said:
			
		

> If you _did_ go, matt, tell us why it _wasn't_ utterly disgraceful & opportunistic.



I didn't go. That's why I haven't commented on it.


----------



## knopf (Jul 26, 2005)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> I didn't go. That's why I haven't commented on it.



Sorry mate. Thought you were a swooper.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Jul 26, 2005)

The report above doesn't seen to be true - given that I have photographic evidence that workmates off Menzes spoke at the rally, I have just read an alternative report on Indymedia:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/07/319572.html


----------



## montevideo (Jul 26, 2005)

okay i did go. Got there about 6.30pm. There was people politiking from the megaphone, but from where i was couldn't hear what was being said. Got a report back that the swtc were unhappy becuase they weren't getting enough time on the megaphone. Healthy size crowd (200-300), virtually no police presense. Heard global womens action were a bit erm, insensitive, but not sure whether that was a good thing or a bad thing. 

Nice part about it was the march (led by the brazilians) into the road & down to mi6 building. Nice because it caught the leftist on the hop _(er, should we be doing this)_, nice because it was spontaneous & well managed (as in people thinking for themselves rather than the left shouting instructions), nice because it was locals with locals (some of the chants were in _foreign_ which always worries the police) nice becuase the police were desperate not to cause a scene. People weren't allowed to go 'demonstrate' outside mi6, were surrounded & eventually dispersed.

For all the bandwagon jumping of left (trying to turn it into 'their' anti-war thing - there was one or two troops out placards, but only one or two)  i came away quite impressed.


----------



## exosculate (Jul 26, 2005)

The Trots are mental. I've always felt that. Jehovah Witnesses one and all.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 26, 2005)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> The report above doesn't seen to be true - given that I have photographic evidence that workmates off Menzes spoke at the rally, I have just read an alternative report on Indymedia:
> 
> http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/07/319572.html


 So you're accusing the two people here who actually did attend the vigil of lying? Look carefully at what they said - did they say that no brazillans spoke at the meeting?


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Jul 26, 2005)

Surely is entirely correct to link the attack on civil liberties in Britain with the war in Iraq, just as it was correct to link the bombings on Iraq with the bombings in London - isn't that the essence of socialism, connecting the dots


----------



## exosculate (Jul 26, 2005)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> Surely is entirely correct to link the attack on civil liberties in Britain with the war in Iraq, just as it was correct to link the bombings on Iraq with the bombings in London - isn't that the essence of socialism, connecting the dots



Yeah connect the dots - without drawing over peoples faces.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Jul 26, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> So you're accusing the two people here who actually did attend the vigil of lying? Look carefully at what they said - did they say that no brazillans spoke at the meeting?



InterStella claims that members of the Brazillian community were denied permission to speak - yet another report clearly states that there were speakers from the local Brazillian community.

Personally, Butchersapron, I find your constant attempts to engage in tedious squabbles on these boards tiresome.

The point is that solidarity was shown with Menzes, a political analysis was raised that linked the issues of civil liberties in the UK with the war on terror and despite some minor disagreements reported it sounds like an effective action.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 26, 2005)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> InterStella claims that members of the Brazillian community were denied permission to speak - yet another report clearly states that there were speakers from the local Brazillian community.
> 
> Personally, Butchersapron, I find your constant attempts to engage in tedious squabbles on these boards tiresome.
> 
> The point is that solidarity was shown with Menzes, a political analysis was raised that linked the issues of civil liberties in the UK with the war on terror and despite some minor disagreements reported it sounds like an effective action.


 I said 'read carfeully', which you evidentally did not do. If you had of done you would have noticed that she actually said:

"STWC had clearly forgotten what they were there for and *didn't want* to let Menezes's family and friends, or members of the Brazilian community, say their piece."

which is a substantially different thing from what you are claiming that she said isn't it? I suggest yhat you take back your claim that the two people who did attend the event are lying.

As it goes, udo, you are the one with the reputation of being the most block headed of all sectarians on here. A quick perusal of your threads alone would help to make this clear. This is when you're not accusing people of being racists thenh dissapearing when you're asked to defend the claim.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 26, 2005)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> The report above doesn't seen to be true - given that I have photographic evidence that workmates off Menzes spoke at the rally, I have just read an alternative report on Indymedia:
> 
> http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/07/319572.html



But then the very report you refer to goes on to say:


> the organizers from the Stop the War Coalition could have done more to facilitate contributions from those in attendance as well as the speakers they had lined up.



Don't think I'd want you defending me if i was in court.


----------



## montevideo (Jul 26, 2005)

here we go, the march after the stwc's 'demo' at stockwell










http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/london/2005/07/319591.html


----------



## layabout (Jul 26, 2005)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> Surely is entirely correct to link the attack on civil liberties in Britain with the war in Iraq, just as it was correct to link the bombings on Iraq with the bombings in London - isn't that the essence of socialism, connecting the dots



Sure. Now the what the fuck has that got to do with a memorial vigil?


----------



## Herbert Read (Jul 26, 2005)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> Surely is entirely correct to link the attack on civil liberties in Britain with the war in Iraq, just as it was correct to link the bombings on Iraq with the bombings in London - isn't that the essence of socialism, connecting the dots



Thats the essence of swp hackery...., connecting the dots you sound like tony cliff. Pathetic..............


----------



## Trouble (Jul 26, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> Thats the essence of swp hackery...., connecting the dots you sound like tony cliff. Pathetic..............



edited cause it did not add anything to discussion.


----------



## tollbar (Jul 26, 2005)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> Surely is entirely correct to link the attack on civil liberties in Britain with the war in Iraq, just as it was correct to link the bombings on Iraq with the bombings in London - isn't that the essence of socialism, connecting the dots



Dont you think that people are quite capable of doing that for themselves without buying a copy of Socialist Worker which only states the blindingly obvious.

And whats the Swaps solution ?. Join Respect, whose leader recently called for suicide bombers to be shot !. Fucking opportunist hypocrites.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jul 26, 2005)

This strikes me as a load of shite from start to finish.

I was present at the event from about six to half-past six. Far from being some well-drilled event designed to promote one point of view at the expense of others, what struck me was that it wasn't actually well-organised at all. It was impossible fo more than about fifty people to hear the speakers, due to (a) the traffic and (b) the presence of a second speaker, who opened up with a second megaphone at about twenty-five past six. This put most people present in a position where they could either hear nothing, or hear two people at once.

Kropotkin's contribution of 1.27 is as incoherent as the event itself. What does he mean by "terrible politics"? A large variety of opinions were on display. If you attend an event where such is the case, you're going to disagree with a fair proportion of the people present. It is witless to blame that on the organisers of the protest. 

There were, in fact, a large number of speakers, not that I could hear any of them. They kicked off with a cleric, moved on to somebody representing Tube workers and so on. The idea of it being some sort of an exclusive event is purely tripe.

This is the usual horseshit where people organise an event - and other people claim that they've "hijacked" it. It has no moee truth than it usually has. Neither the end of the event (i.e. the march) nor the report on _Indymedia_ - no friend to the Trotskyites - suggest that people were excluded in any way.


----------



## rebel warrior (Jul 26, 2005)

So some people thought it was outrageous that leading members of the Stop the War Coalition spoke at a vigil organised by the, er, Stop the War Coalition? 

Just making sure I am reading this right.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jul 27, 2005)

It's an amazing point which seems to elude some people - possibly because they never organise anything substantial themselves, but merely slag off those who do - that people who _do_ organise events don't necessarily know everybody individually or every group who would like to make a contribution to that event. Remarkably enough, however, many speakers you invite, there are nearly always people present who wish to speak but whom the organisers do not know beforehand. This can even include people who have something important to saay, but whose telephone numbers are not, as it happens, known to the organisers beforehand. Fortunately, if they make themselves known, they can usually find a place on the platform, as appears to have happened here, even in an event as scrappily organised as this one.


----------



## montevideo (Jul 27, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> It's an amazing point which seems to elude some people - possibly because they never organise anything substantial themselves, but merely slag off those who do - that people who _do_ organise events don't necessarily know everybody individually or every group who would like to make a contribution to that event. Remarkably enough, however, many speakers you invite, there are nearly always people present who wish to speak but whom the organisers do not know beforehand. This can even include people who have something important to saay, but whose telephone numbers are not, as it happens, known to the organisers beforehand. Fortunately, if they make themselves known, they can usually find a place on the platform, as appears to have happened here, even in an event as scrappily organised as this one.



i refer your goodself to post #25


----------



## TeeJay (Jul 27, 2005)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> Surely is entirely correct to link the attack on civil liberties in Britain with the war in Iraq, just as it was correct to link the bombings on Iraq with the bombings in London - isn't that the essence of socialism, connecting the dots


Is this the same vigil on Monday that Epicurus is writing about on this thread:
Brazilian view from yesterday’s vigil for Jean Charles de Menezes?



			
				Epicurus said:
			
		

> Yesterday we went to the vigil for Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell Station and after some political speeches from the usual groups that attach themselves to this sort of thing, the Brazilians amongst the group decided to march from Stockwell to the nearest Police Station (as no-one knew where that was we went from Stockwell to Vauxhall along South Lambeth Road much to the surprise of the Police who didn’t really want to let the march go ahead).
> 
> I spoke with many fellow Brazilians at Stockwell and on the March and the consensus view (not my view) seemed to be this:
> 
> ...


----------



## TeeJay (Jul 27, 2005)

(Re-posted from another thread but equally relevant to this one)

Personally I would support anything organised specifically to demand justice for Jean Charles de Menezes and done in consultation with his friends, family and the wider Brazilian/Latin American community in London. I have no interest however in being tricked into turning up at a protest put on by anyone with other agendas such as a generalised hatred of the police or government, a desire to promote their political party or group, looking for an excuse to fight with the police, promoting 'troops out now', supporting Iraqi insurgents, banging a religious drum or fantasing about CIA/MI6/Mossad conspiracy theories.

I would really suggest that the aformentioned 'friends, family and the wider Brazilian/Latin American community' make sure they are not seduced by the bullshit of seemingly 'supportive' groups who have shown time and again they will cynically use anyone or any tragedy to advance their own interests only to walk away later when they have got what they wanted.


----------



## layabout (Jul 27, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> It's an amazing point which seems to elude some people - possibly because they never organise anything substantial themselves, but merely slag off those who do - that people who _do_ organise events don't necessarily know everybody individually or every group who would like to make a contribution to that event. Remarkably enough, however, many speakers you invite, there are nearly always people present who wish to speak but whom the organisers do not know beforehand. This can even include people who have something important to saay, but whose telephone numbers are not, as it happens, known to the organisers beforehand. Fortunately, if they make themselves known, they can usually find a place on the platform, as appears to have happened here, even in an event as scrappily organised as this one.



Would Iain Blair, John Paddick, The shadow home secretary and the local catholic priest been allowed on that platform?

Do the organisers let people know that they can speak?

Also, why is it called a vigil, if there is going to me people armed with megaphones talking to the crowd?


----------



## montevideo (Jul 27, 2005)

layabout said:
			
		

> Would Iain Blair, John Paddick, The shadow home secretary and the local catholic priest been allowed on that platform?
> 
> Do the organisers let people know that they can speak?
> 
> Also, why is it called a vigil, if there is going to me people armed with megaphones talking to the crowd?



are there concrete rules for a vigil? Isn't simply an act of observance? I didn't realise there were a set of rules that had to be followed, maybe you should inform the International Vigil Committee to let them know an illegal vigil was held behind their backs? Maybe next time we can get the commissioner for Vigil Rights to attend to ensure vigil rules are strictly adhered to.

Prick!


----------



## rednblack (Jul 27, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> inform the International Vigil Committee
> 
> Prick!



vigilantes?


----------



## Top Dog (Jul 27, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> vigilantes?


vigil-anti's?


----------



## denialworks4me (Jul 27, 2005)

im tired of the squabling on the political threads too - seems to be the same jaded people throwing mud on campaigns and actions...put your energy into something positive    seems like Global Women's Strike group have more to answer to, tho for many on these boards its easier to regurgitate anti stwc or socialist rants than analyse and comment in a progressive manner.


----------



## IntoStella (Jul 27, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> It's an amazing point which seems to elude some people - possibly because they never organise anything substantial themselves, but merely slag off those who do - that people who _do_ organise events don't necessarily know everybody individually or every group who would like to make a contribution to that event. Remarkably enough, however, many speakers you invite, there are nearly always people present who wish to speak but whom the organisers do not know beforehand. This can even include people who have something important to saay, but whose telephone numbers are not, as it happens, known to the organisers beforehand. Fortunately, if they make themselves known, they can usually find a place on the platform, as appears to have happened here, even in an event as scrappily organised as this one.


 Why did you leave the event so quickly if it wasn't a disgraceful shambles? 

Have you forgotten, as SWTC clearly have, that it was meant to be a *vigil* for Jean de Menezes, a man tragically and appallingly slaughtered not three days beforehand? Do you honestly think his family wouldn't have been appalled by the the sight of hysterical trots, screaming, literally screaming, into a microphone, let alone the fact that they, the family, had already been completely forgotten?

People have shown far more sensitivity and sympathy towards you over  a cat that you were fond of than STWC showed to Jean de Menezes's family and friends. Perhaps you need to reconsider your priorities.


----------



## denialworks4me (Jul 27, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Why did you leave the event so quickly if it wasn't a disgraceful shambles?
> 
> Have you forgotten, as SWTC clearly have, that it was meant to be a *vigil* for Jean de Menezes, a man tragically and appallingly slaughtered not three days beforehand? Do you honestly think his family wouldn't have been appalled by the the sight of hysterical trots, screaming, literally screaming, into a microphone, let alone the fact that they, the family, had already been completely forgotten?
> 
> People have shown far more sensitivity and sympathy towards you over  a cat that you were fond of than STWC showed to Jean de Menezes's family and friends. Perhaps you need to reconsider your priorities.



who can take this serious..its a bizzare caricature of what went on...


----------



## IntoStella (Jul 27, 2005)

denialworks4me said:
			
		

> who can take this serious..its a bizzare caricature of what went on...


You were there? No, you weren't, were you, or you would have said. Are you going to pretend you were now? 

Funny how trots are so ready to deny something they actually know nothing about.  Who can take the trots "serious"? 

As I said, I have hitherto kept out of the usual P&P battles but what happened on Monday night was sickening, and it doesn't matter how many people _who weren't actually there_ try to deny it, the fact remains.


----------



## IntoStella (Jul 27, 2005)

denialworks4me said:
			
		

> seems to be the same jaded people throwing mud on campaigns and actions


 Actually it isn't, but don't let _the facts_ get in the way of a good whine.


----------



## TeeJay (Jul 27, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> are there concrete rules for a vigil? Isn't simply an act of observance? I didn't realise there were a set of rules that had to be followed, maybe you should inform the International Vigil Committee to let them know an illegal vigil was held behind their backs? Maybe next time we can get the commissioner for Vigil Rights to attend to ensure vigil rules are strictly adhered to.
> 
> Prick!


Claiming to be one thing while in fact being another isn't necessarily illegal but it is dishonest (or maybe just fuckwitted):

vigil 
n.

1. a) A watch kept during normal sleeping hours.
b) The act or a period of observing; surveillance.
2. The eve of a religious festival observed by staying awake as a devotional exercise.
3. Ritual devotions observed on the eve of a holy day. Often used in the plural.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vigil

protest
n. 

1. A formal declaration of disapproval or objection issued by a concerned person, group, or organization.
2. An individual or collective gesture or display of disapproval.

www.dictionary.com


----------



## X-77 (Jul 27, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> here we go, the march after the stwc's 'demo' at stockwell
> 
> 
> 
> ...


but wasn't that the march that _came out of _ the stwc's demo?


----------



## X-77 (Jul 27, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> are there concrete rules for a vigil? Isn't simply an act of observance? I didn't realise there were a set of rules that had to be followed, maybe you should inform the International Vigil Committee to let them know an illegal vigil was held behind their backs? Maybe next time we can get the commissioner for Vigil Rights to attend to ensure vigil rules are strictly adhered to.
> 
> Prick!


someone needed to say that to him baaadly


----------



## TeeJay (Jul 27, 2005)

denialworks4me said:
			
		

> im tired of the squabling on the political threads too - seems to be the same jaded people throwing mud on campaigns and actions...put your energy into something positive    seems like Global Women's Strike group have more to answer to, tho for many on these boards its easier to regurgitate anti stwc or socialist rants than analyse and comment in a progressive manner.


These forums are for discussing stuff. That is what happens here. Sometimes people praise things and sometimes they criticise things - isn't that the nature of debate?

What people do away from their computers isn't constrained by their posting comments here is it?

I would also like to see people actually doing stuff, but isn't that kind of irrelevant to what is going on in these forums since these forums exist as somewhere to debate things? These forums are *also* used to help organise and advertise events as well, but it isn't and either/or situation is it?


----------



## TeeJay (Jul 27, 2005)

denialworks4me said:
			
		

> who can take this serious..its a bizzare caricature of what went on...


Sorry but I take IntoStella seriously due to her previous track record of fair and accurate reporting, her extensive knowledge of Lambeth and her lack of a preexisting agenda. I haven't always agreed with everything she has posted on every issue but I do take her seriously.


----------



## TeeJay (Jul 27, 2005)

X-77 said:
			
		

> but wasn't that the march that _came out of _ the stwc's demo?


It is prescisely this kind of parasitic behaviour that people dislike.

Do you see any of those people carrying stwc signs? How many of these people are there because they are interested in stwc? Would they have turned up for a local action for de Menezes if the stwc hadn't been there? What do people think about the stwc trying to jump on this bandwagon, trying to control events, trying to take credit, trying to pretend that any support for de Menezes is support for them? 

swp/ruc/stwc/'insert front here' = full time issue hijackers


----------



## layabout (Jul 27, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> are there concrete rules for a vigil? Isn't simply an act of observance? I didn't realise there were a set of rules that had to be followed, maybe you should inform the International Vigil Committee to let them know an illegal vigil was held behind their backs? Maybe next time we can get the commissioner for Vigil Rights to attend to ensure vigil rules are strictly adhered to.
> 
> Prick!



I asked you straight forward simple questions. You evaded them and called me a prick.

Again. 

Please answer the questions:

Would Iain Blair, John Paddick, The shadow home secretary and the local catholic priest been allowed on that platform?

Do the organisers let people know that they can speak?

Also, why is it called a vigil, if there is going to me people armed with megaphones talking to the crowd?


----------



## treelover (Jul 27, 2005)

blimey, fair few on that march, i've said before, other countries, particularly brazilian/ latinos, don't take the crap we do. 

then again, apparently the global womens strike people behaved appallingly

Intostella, please stick around, we need you in p/p.


----------



## TeeJay (Jul 27, 2005)

treelover said:
			
		

> ...other countries, particularly brazilian/ latinos, don't take the crap we do...


How do you mean? I get the impression that the police in Brazil have killed thousands of people.


----------



## montevideo (Jul 27, 2005)

layabout said:
			
		

> I asked you straight forward simple questions. You evaded them and called me a prick.
> 
> Again.
> 
> ...



well you didn't ask me anything but you are still a prick. Prick!

If i had any choice, none of these people would be allowed to 'speak' on the platform. They are all part of the enemy. That is the answer to your first question. Prick!

In accordance with the stwc vigil, they decided who should speak hence the conflict that occurred over the megaphone. To the answer to that individual question: fucks knows, don't care: You are still a prick!

To your last question, i refer you to my last response.

Now piss off prick!


----------



## audiotech (Jul 27, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> well you didn't ask me anything but you are still a prick. Prick!
> 
> If i had any choice, none of these people would be allowed to 'speak' on the platform. They are all part of the enemy. That is the answer to your first question. Prick!
> 
> ...



Concise and to the point.


----------



## IntoStella (Jul 28, 2005)

treelover said:
			
		

> blimey, fair few on that march, i've said before, other countries, particularly brazilian/ latinos, don't take the crap we do.
> 
> then again, apparently the global womens strike people behaved appallingly


 I've been giving this some further thought. I think the whole thing was massively rushed,  ill conceived and inappropriate. It wasn't necessary for STWC to rush in and hold a so-called vigil just three days after Jean de Menezes's death. They could have arranged a much bigger, properly organised protest for a week, two weeks, three weeks hence. It's not like the outrage over his slaughter is going to go away any time soon.

If they had done this, they could have had a proper stage and PA so people could see and hear and a proper running order for speakers, agreed beforehand  between all those involved, to prevent the ugly scenes witnessed on Monday.

And they could have done the whole thing at a better and more central location. It didn't HAVE to be at the scene of the killing.

Why did they fail on all these points? In my view, because they could not wait to jump on the bandwagon and make political capital out of the all-too-recent tragedy. And because they think they look so damn wadical posturing and screeching into a megaphone. The upshot of that was that they acted extremely insensitively, though no big surprise there.

The wimmin didn't come out of it looking very dignified, true,  but the fundamental problems were, at root, organisational.


----------



## treelover (Jul 28, 2005)

Well, they are rushing into another, the day before the family sanctioned one, i know which one i would go to. Imo, the swp/stwc don't work like that, they are fundies, always on a constant high and desperately looking for the next 'big thing' ' or 'event' which they can latch onto and exploit, exploit being the operative word


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jul 28, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> And they could have done the whole thing at a better and more central location. It didn't HAVE to be at the scene of the killing.


Y'know, IS, I don't recall you saying before the vigil "I think this is an inappropriate place for a vigil".


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jul 28, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> It is prescisely this kind of parasitic behaviour that people dislike.
> 
> Do you see any of those people carrying stwc signs? How many of these people are there because they are interested in stwc? Would they have turned up for a local action for de Menezes if the stwc hadn't been there? What do people think about the stwc trying to jump on this bandwagon, trying to control events, trying to take credit, trying to pretend that any support for de Menezes is support for them?
> 
> swp/ruc/stwc/'insert front here' = full time issue hijackers


Hang on, none of this means anything. There wouldn't have _been_ a vigil that eveing had STW not organised it. So how this works is that, as ever, they organise something, other people then slag them off, turn up for it anyway (not having organised anything themselves) and then accuse them of "hijacking" it. Which is laughable.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 28, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Y'know, IS, I don't recall you saying before the vigil "I think this is an inappropriate place for a vigil".


it's a pity that when you changed your name you didn't also change your posting style.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jul 28, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Why did you leave the event so quickly if it wasn't a disgraceful shambles?


Because I couldn't hear what was going on due to the traffic and due to the person who started up with a second megaphone.


----------



## Random (Jul 28, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Hang on, none of this means anything. There wouldn't have _been_ a vigil that eveing had STW not organised it.



So hopefully the STWC will be urging people to support the vigil that the family have organised on friday -- independently of the STWC -- and will themselves support it without advancing any particular agenda.  Would you expect that to be reasonable behaviour?


----------



## TeeJay (Jul 28, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Hang on, none of this means anything. There wouldn't have _been_ a vigil that eveing had STW not organised it. So how this works is that, as ever, they organise something, other people then slag them off, turn up for it anyway (not having organised anything themselves) and then accuse them of "hijacking" it. Which is laughable.


Rubbish. There is a pre-existing well of support for the de Menezes issue and other people organising things. Jumping in there first with a large and pre-existing issue-hijacking outfit, sucking up support then claiming that this support would not have been expressed any other way - it is this which is "laughable" - or would be if it wasn't so fucking disgusting.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jul 28, 2005)

Random said:
			
		

> So hopefully the STWC will be urging people to support the vigil that the family have organised on friday -- independently of the STWC -- and will themselves support it without advancing any particular agenda.  Would you expect that to be reasonable behaviour?


Without knowing any more about it than I've read in your posting, I'd have said so.

My point is that there was, on Monday, a fairly chaotic vigil-cum-demo. It wasn't well organised, though I don't think anybody appreciated that the traffic would be so loud that you wouldn't be able to hear a megaphone from ten yards' distance. (I mean you could _hear_, but not make out the words.)

Now to turn that into some sort of hijacking manoeuvre is a bit much, though not unexpected from people who have _always_ said that about STW. As I've always said about these people, they organise stuff all, the STW organise things, and then the do-nothings (while turning up on the things that other people have worked hard to bring about) then complain that STW has "hijacked" the thing that, er, STW created. This is not true of the thread-starter, but it's true of a fair few of the commenters. _Anything_ the STW (or anybody else) does is hijacking. There are some very intolerant people about calling themselves libertarian.

I also have a problem with people who are prepared to take part in events themselves, but if anybody else turns up who they don't politically like, will accuse those people of "hijacking" it. Apart from anything else this strikes me as particularly witless _because that's exactly what the papers and the political Right will say about you._

I know, as it happens, a fair few of the "Trots" who were present: I like some of them, don't like some others. I used to share their politics and now do not. But I'm not going to call them hijackers unless I'm going to say the same about other leftists _who went along to the same event with the same motives_. And, you know, I've not heard the "Trots" laying into anybody _else_ for coming along. So my inclination is to defend them against their detractors.

Back to the actual evening. I'm not sure anybody knew what was going on. I suspect the organisers expected a minutes' silence, a few short speeches and then people going home. It didn't work out like that. But the problem that prevented it doing so didn't exist because there were a nasty group of "Trots" trying to take over everything: it happened because the circumstances were not such as to make proper organisation possible. Nnobody could communicate with anybody. That's why I went home early. In retrospect, I think the vigil was a poor idea and it was certainly poorly carried through. But I'm not accepting all the usual screaming about hijacking and all the rest. Spare me. And spare me also, the personal remarks.


----------



## Groucho (Jul 28, 2005)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> The report above doesn't seen to be true - given that I have photographic evidence that workmates off Menzes spoke at the rally, I have just read an alternative report on Indymedia:
> 
> http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/07/319572.html



I did go.

The Brazilian friends of Menzes were part of the line up of speakers. The turn out was good and the vigil started with two minutes silence. 

The shouting down of all speakers who were not Brazilian began after half an hour or so and was not the Brazilians as far as I could make out but the Spartacus League ('Revolutionary Defence of the Socialist Republic of North Korea'). There were some there who felt that the Iraq war was not an appropriate subject. It was chaotic at points and at one point two megaphones - STWC and Spart (I think) were pitted against each other. No-one could hear what was being said from the back which is where I was for much of the time. I left after the Socialist Party speaker (who I could hear).

The turn out was good and the first few speaches were clear and coherent before the noise kicked in, after which the speeches were shouted.

I left before the march as it appeared to be about to disperse.

This is from the account on Indymedia and I would go along with that.

"On one hand the organizers from the Stop the War Coalition could have done more to facilitate contributions from those in attendance as well as the speakers they had lined up. On the other the heckling from one organized (mostly American) group in the crowd was totally disrespectful to the occasion especially when they shouted abuse during the minutes silence called to remember Jean. Fucking idiots. 

This aside the speeches on the whole were very good especially the ones by the local Brazilians and Portuguese who had shown up for the vigil. Considering the short notice the turnout was very good and the local anger was plain to see. Sadly a lot of people left before the end, which was a shame because they missed a very good spontaneous march. "


----------



## TeeJay (Jul 28, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> ...then complain that STW has "hijacked" the thing that, er, STW created...


They are hijacking the *support* for de Menezes and cynically exploiting the *good will* of people who care about his killing. Do you genuinely believe that the SWT/SWP created either of these?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jul 28, 2005)

Such is your claim. I see no reason to agree with it.


----------



## denialworks4me (Jul 28, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> You were there? No, you weren't, were you, or you would have said. Are you going to pretend you were now?
> 
> Funny how trots are so ready to deny something they actually know nothing about.  Who can take the trots "serious"?
> 
> As I said, I have hitherto kept out of the usual P&P battles but what happened on Monday night was sickening, and it doesn't matter how many people _who weren't actually there_ try to deny it, the fact remains.



Into - this aint no damn blog, i dont post up everything i do day in day out..... i was infact there for quite some time....and why are you so keen to label people trots if they oppose what you say  ?


----------



## denialworks4me (Jul 28, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Rubbish. There is a pre-existing well of support for the de Menezes issue and other people organising things. Jumping in there first with a large and pre-existing issue-hijacking outfit, sucking up support then claiming that this support would not have been expressed any other way - it is this which is "laughable" - or would be if it wasn't so fucking disgusting.



the death of de Menezes is directly related to rightward shift of the new labour government and the terror it has created on the streets in london, bagdad and kabul..... i dont see how this was hi jacked


----------



## TeeJay (Jul 28, 2005)

denialworks4me said:
			
		

> the death of de Menezes is directly related to rightward shift of the new labour government and the terror it has created on the streets in london, bagdad and kabul..... i dont see how this was hi jacked


Police shoot people all round the world and have done so in the UK before Iraq or New Labour appeared on the radar. People can protest about this and demand justice without *any* reference to foreign policy or the left/right complextion of the Labour Party. It is ironic in fact that the calls for more and better police surveillance and intelligence to avoid further mistakes has previously been more usual from the right. As far as I can see many people are upset about this killing and are demanding justice without making the connections with a 'troops out' analysis or a 'labour is right wing' one, so it is very dishonest to try claim that their demand is for this when it isn't.


----------



## treelover (Jul 28, 2005)

what a ridiculous comment, how on earth do you know what we do offline?


'And then the do-nothings (while turning up on the things that other people have worked hard to bring about) then complain that STW has "hijacked" the thing that, er, STW created. This is not true of the thread-starter, but it's true of a fair few of the commenters.'


----------



## IntoStella (Jul 28, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Y'know, IS, I don't recall you saying before the vigil "I think this is an inappropriate place for a vigil".


That's because before it happened, I didn't know that what was falsely advertised as a vigil was going to be, in fact, an ugly shouting match.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jul 28, 2005)

Well, neither did I. I don't see that as being the fault of the organisers though, or anybody's fault in particular. I see no reason to think it was intended to be a shouting match. Matter of fact, we could have done with a bit more shouting earlier on.


----------



## IntoStella (Jul 28, 2005)

denialworks4me said:
			
		

> Into - this aint no damn blog, i dont post up everything i do day in day out..


 What an absurd remark. In the circumstances, whether you were actually there, or whether you're just regurgitating what you read about it, has considerable bearing on what you have to say about the matter.


----------



## ChrisBear (Aug 1, 2005)

the police who held down an innocent guy and shot him eight times, seven in the head, will be distraught to see so many `left wingers` arguing amogst themselves over one single evening vigil held for the dead guy on a BBS.

they wont be laughing and rubbing hands together muttering `mugs`.

i mean if the vigil had been perfect and pelased everyone then would the situation be better, worse, or basically identical?

someone on this thread said somehting along the lines of `put your energies into something constructive`...i'm with her/him.


----------



## X-77 (Aug 1, 2005)

ChrisBear said:
			
		

> the police who held down an innocent guy and shot him eight times, seven in the head, will be distraught to see so many `left wingers` arguing amogst themselves over one single evening vigil held for the dead guy on a BBS.


to be fair, at least a couple of them aren't even claiming to be left wingers anyway. For instance, one is an extremely right-wing tory and another a blairite/new labour I think. 

But I agree with what you're saying, it's a pointless and disheartening argument to be coming from those who are genuinely disgusted by what happened to this innocent guy murdered in cold blood by the state


----------



## Skimix (Aug 1, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Ever since the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, I have tried hard to be non partisan, despite my historic intense dislike of trots, because I believe the left should pull together.
> 
> But the so called vigil for Jean Charles de Menezes, ''organised'' (pah) by "Lambeth STWC" last night at Stockwell tube station was a mortifying disgrace.
> 
> ...




I was there as well (I live in Stockwell, it wasn't deliberate!) and I agree with everything you say, I was seriously fucking angry, it wasn't a vigil for Menzes but an excuse for a bunch of wankers to have a rant.

It never fails to amaze me that the left do this to themselves. How they think anyone will support them when they turn up to something like this and rather than behaving decently they rant and wave around placards comparing the police to the gestapo I just don't understand.  It was a lesson in how to alienate as many people as possible in one evening!


----------



## montevideo (Aug 1, 2005)

Skimix said:
			
		

> I was there as well (I live in Stockwell, it wasn't deliberate!) and I agree with everything you say, I was seriously fucking angry, it wasn't a vigil for Menzes but an excuse for a bunch of wankers to have a rant.
> 
> It never fails to amaze me that the left do this to themselves. How they think anyone will support them when they turn up to something like this and rather than behaving decently they rant and wave around placards comparing the police to the gestapo I just don't understand.  It was a lesson in how to alienate as many people as possible in one evening!



do you always talk in sunspeak? 

*What mugs we are!*


----------



## audiotech (Aug 1, 2005)

Skimix said:
			
		

> I was there as well (I live in Stockwell, it wasn't deliberate!) and I agree with everything you say, I was seriously fucking angry, it wasn't a vigil for Menzes but an excuse for a bunch of wankers to have a rant.
> 
> It never fails to amaze me that the left do this to themselves. How they think anyone will support them when they turn up to something like this and rather than behaving decently they rant and wave around placards comparing the police to the gestapo I just don't understand.  It was a lesson in how to alienate as many people as possible in one evening!



Nice rant there. Does that make you a 'wanker' too?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 21, 2005)

A coda to this. The other night, on _Newsnight_, Michael Crick was complaining that two people prominent in the _Justice4Jean_ campaign - that is, people _specifically asked by the Menezes family to campaign with them and for them_ - were, in fact, also prominent in STW and in Respect.

Now does it seem likely to anybody who approaches the matter rationally,  that if STW and the "Trots" has actually upset the de Menezes family, had sidelined and ignored them, that the de Menezes family would actually be happy with having those same people prominent _in their own campaign_, would be happy with those same people _sitting alongside them on their own platform_?

It's not, of course. If they've asked those same people to play such a prominent role, it is rather more likely that they see them as friends rather than as enemies, "hijackers" and all the rest.

Still, what does that matter when there are political rivals to belittle and accusations to be made?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Aug 21, 2005)

Who is John Paddick? I've seen him mentioned on this thread and have no idea who he is.


----------



## TeeJay (Aug 21, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> A coda to this. The other night, on _Newsnight_, Michael Crick was complaining that two people prominent in the _Justice4Jean_ campaign - that is, people _specifically asked by the Menezes family to campaign with them and for them_ - were, in fact, also prominent in STW and in Respect.


Is this actually true? Or did these two people approach the family and offer to help them out without explaining any wider agenda they might have? I would be interested in hearing the details of how "Justice4Jean" was set up having heard the Newsnight comments the other night.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 21, 2005)

Well, presumably we'll find out when the family summarily evict the hijackers having heard what the nasty people are up to and the agenda that they've hidden from them.

Or possibly we won't. And possibly, in order to explain the the family why they weren't just a couple of random people off the street, they might have had to explain what organisations they were attached to.


----------



## TeeJay (Aug 21, 2005)

Most of the family are in Brazil aren't they? I expect they would welcome anyone who turned up and offered to help out - wouldn't you? Still doesn't mean that they are being used by cynical bandwagon-jumping parasites with their own agenda does it? The family may well not have had much of a choice of who to turn to and were simply grateful that some people turned up saying they wanted to help and could provide resources and UK contacts. So far they might not have realised what these people's true agenda is or noticed any divergence or problems with them, however we can see already how their mere involvement is pissing of people in the UK who might otherwise support Justice4Jean.

You said they had been "invited" - do you know this is what happened or were you just inventing this information? Why did you say that this is what happened and then say we will have to 'find out'?


----------



## winjer (Aug 22, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> So far they might not have realised what these people's true agenda is or noticed any divergence or problems with them,



What is their 'true agenda' then?



> however we can see already how their mere involvement is pissing of people in the UK who might otherwise support Justice4Jean.



Can we? Who has it pissed off, besides Michael Crick?


----------



## X-77 (Aug 22, 2005)

winjer said:
			
		

> What is their 'true agenda' then?
> 
> 
> 
> Can we? Who has it pissed off, besides Michael Crick?


yeah I'd like those questions answered too 

It was absolutely pathetic when the Newsnight lackey asked in an oh-so-concerned tone, 'so just who _are_ these British people speaking for the family?' and then Crick went on to tell him just how shady the whole set up is, that the guy is Galloway's paid political advisor, the woman was part of Corporate Pirates, they have connections with stw and other 'far left groups'......ooh, how sinister  as I said on another thread about this, are viewers supposed to be shocked that the family's spokespeople are politically active? 

But hey, just another typical load of BS spin from the BBC - so no surprise there then


----------



## TeeJay (Aug 22, 2005)

winjer said:
			
		

> Who has it pissed off, besides Michael Crick?


Haven't you been reading any of the threads here about various vigils etc?

You want to know what the SWP agenda is?


----------



## X-77 (Aug 23, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> You want to know what the SWP agenda is?


the spokespeople aren't SWP though are they?


----------



## TeeJay (Aug 23, 2005)

How would someone go about finding out?

edit:

*Asad Rehman*: _"My political background is Marxist, but I’m also a Muslim. In the past on the left you would have had to stay quiet if you believed in God. Now you’ve got people who are saying, ‘I’m for the Muslim community and I also believe in the left’. We are forcing open a space not only within the Marxist left but also in contrast to the right-wing Islamists as well. We have multiple identities and need multiple spaces. Those who want to engage with us have to recognise our rights to these identities and spaces."_ http://www.redpepper.org.uk/June2004/x-June2004-Respect.html

Pirate *Yasmin* 'Bluebeard' *Khan*, 24, of London said _"OOh aah, me hearties. We pirates know all about breaking the law and getting rich and that's just what Windrush are doing! And while we usually get just pieces of eight, these guys are digging into a treasure chest worth billions. The only disappointment is that the casualties have, unfortunately, been in proportion to the wealth - sad to say, but the skull and cross bones has sure got some blood on it."_ http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/cambridge/2005/04/307995.html

Apparently the J4J website is registered to *Alistair Alexander*, a STWC press officer, who wrote this for the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,3605,898666,00.html
_"As a press officer for the Stop the War Coalition in the run-up to Saturday's march, I experienced first-hand how the internet has allowed tiny political groups with virtually no resources to mobilise millions of people."_

So, maybe or maybe not SWP (probably not by the look of it) but... the main point remains. This really does look like cynical bandwagon jumping and doesn't help the Justice4Jean cause - or more accurately the family's cause - in the slightest.


----------



## X-77 (Aug 23, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> So, maybe or maybe not SWP (probably not by the look of it) but... the main point remains. This really does look like cynical bandwagon jumping and doesn't help the Justice4Jean cause - or more accurately the family's cause - in the slightest.


so who would be better suited in your opinion, other than politically active people who actually care about this sort of stuff


----------



## rebel warrior (Aug 23, 2005)

Why can't we have some nice good Liberal types to represent the family?  

You know, neutral people, without any political opinion of any sort?  Why haven't those people rallied around the family against the police?  

Its fucking outrageous.  Where are the Liberal Democrats?  Where is that nice man Simon Hughes when the nation needs him?


----------



## winjer (Aug 23, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Haven't you been reading any of the threads here about various vigils etc?



Yes, which have included justifiable criticisms of the STWC but also some ludicrous points about it being inappropriate for people to speak or display banners at vigils.



> You want to know what the SWP agenda is?



Yeah, I mean, I know what they do but I've often wondered what it is they think it will achieve


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Aug 23, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> How would someone go about finding out?
> 
> edit:
> 
> ...



Go back to reading your Daily Express, you muppet. 

Why the hell shouldn't people who oppose the war campaign in solidarity with Jean's family, most people on these boards are involved in numerous different campaigns

Asad Rehman is I believe a longstanding anti-racist activist, leader of the Newham Monitoring Project and worked for Amnesty International for 10 years - excellent credentials for leading a solidarity campaign for the victim of shoot-to-kill.

Are you going to line up with Charles Clarke, Tee Jay? Who has attacked Gareth Peirce, an internationally renowned human rights lawyer?

Is she cynically jumping on the bandwagon? Afterall she represented Guantanemo Bay prisoners, so therefore following Tee Jay's logic, how dare she involve herself in any other political campaign and if she does she must be attempting to manipulate Jean Charles de Menezes' family.

Let's forget that she helped free the Guildford 4, wrongly imprisoned (and was played by Emma Thompson in the Film of the case, "In the Name of the Father", and has been active in defending people against the anti-terror laws.

Why the hell shouldn't people active in the anti-war movement, the biggest campaign in a generation, campaign for Justice for Jean Charles de Menezes?

You are an absolute fool, Tee Jay in repeating a media-hysteria about "reds" manipulating the family, which is designed to divert attention away from the real issue that an innocent man was shot dead.

Virtually every anti-racist campaign, anti-deportation campaign and all kinds of grassroots campaigns have been initiated by people from the far-left, are you seriously saying Tee Jay, that only "safe" a-political establishment figures can campaign for justice?
_
Tee Jay you are not helping Jean Charles De Menezes' family by repeating right wing attacks on those who are helping Jean Charles de Menezes' family_


----------



## Japey (Aug 23, 2005)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> Why can't we have some nice good Liberal types to represent the family?
> 
> You know, neutral people, without any political opinion of any sort?  Why haven't those people rallied around the family against the police?
> 
> Where are the Liberal Democrats?



The only person who can help the family's campaign is a good lawyer.  Anybody else is either deluding themselves or attempting to capitalise on the issue.

Maybe the Lib Dems haven't been clamouring to be seen at a vigil because they recognise this.


----------



## TeeJay (Aug 24, 2005)

X-77 said:
			
		

> so who would be better suited in your opinion, other than politically active people who actually care about this sort of stuff


People who were very up front about themselves from the start and people who had no conflict of interest or other current agendas.


----------



## TeeJay (Aug 24, 2005)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> Are you going to line up with Charles Clarke, Tee Jay? Who has attacked Gareth Peirce, an internationally renowned human rights lawyer?


My feelings about Gareth Peirce: 

1. Isn't Gareth a bloke's name?
2. She should really get a haircut: all I am thinking when I see her is "why the fuck does she have hair covering her eyes?"

Apart from that I presume she is an excellent lawyer who doesn't hide her background and has no conflicts of interest or other agendas, and will behave in an exemplary professional manner. Being a lawyer she also probably understands the concept of a potential conflict of interest and the things that should be done to avoid this and for it to *be clearly seen* to have been avoided. And for the record I don't read the Express (or the Guardian any more either) - I only bother with The Economist every week, the BBC news, Google News and stuff I read here or on Schnews or Indymedia.

Regarding you question of why certain people should or shouldn't get involved: it isn't merely the identity of people - it is the way they behave, how open they are about their agendas, backgrounds and other interests, whether they make it clear if they are drawing connections with their own campaigns or seeking to focus support for one issue into support for another separate issue, whether they have considered if their other connections will add credibility or conversely detract from the campaign they are seeking to "front" and so forth. 

I would really welcome some clear statements from the people involved about this issue rather than denial, evasion and a load of gumph about 'right wing agendas' etc. Jean's family and the wider campaign to see justice done in this case deserve far better than this.

And by the way Udo, its TeeJay - all one word - not Tee Jay.


----------



## montevideo (Aug 24, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> My feelings about Gareth Peirce:
> 
> 1. Isn't Gareth a bloke's name?
> 2. She should really get a haircut: all I am thinking when I see her is "why the fuck does she have hair covering her eyes?"



i think you are absolutely right. Our ladies (who are positions of power) should make more of an effort. Look at that hilary benn of the government, she could do with a trip to the hairdressers & maybe a bit of make-up. Unlike margaret thatcher, now there is a real _lady_.


----------



## TeeJay (Aug 24, 2005)

It isn't about looking *good* - its the fact that I like to see someone's eyes when they are talking, as it is a useful form of non-verbal communication and can tell you a lot. Gareth Pierce has a fringe that obscures her eyes - in recent TV interviews I could hardly make out her face.







Sorry if this offends against some perceived "sexism" radar but I'd say the same of anyone, male or female, who's job it was to represent people and go on TV to speak publically. She can probably do an excellent job despite her hairstyle - no doubt she does. I was simply saying that these are my thoughts - fairly trivial ones I admit - about her and I mentioned them by way of explaining that I am *not* lining up with Charles Clarke to denounce her over Guantanemo for example.


----------



## montevideo (Aug 24, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> It isn't about looking *good* - its the fact that I like to see someone's eyes when they are talking, as it is a useful form of non-verbal communication and can tell you a lot. Gareth Pierce has a fringe that obscures her eyes - in recent TV interviews I could hardly make out her face.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It's not about the way she looks but it's about the way she looks????!!!!!


What about ugly fat blokes in postions of power, are you going to cast a critical _aesthetic_ eye over them & give us your considered opinion about the way they look (& how that affects their abilities)?


----------



## TeeJay (Aug 24, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> It's not about the way she looks but it's about the way she looks????!!!!!
> 
> 
> What about ugly fat blokes in postions of power, are you going to cast a critical _aesthetic_ eye over them & give us your considered opinion about the way they look (& how that affects their abilities)?


Why is it relevant to this thread? I simply make a throw-away remark saying what my impression of Gareth Pierce is. The remark was to illustrate that I don't agree with Charles Clarke about her, a question I was asked by Udo. Because you seem to be making some kind of issue of of this I have further explained myself and added a picture to show what I mean to anyone who doesn't already know. 

What is your point about "ugly fat blokes"? I haven't even said I think GP is 'ugly' in any case. I fail to see what your point is. I don't intend to go any further down this utterly irrelevant cul-de-sac and I don't see any reason why you should either.





Phowargh!


----------



## Soul On Ice (Aug 24, 2005)

Heard Ken Livingstone on the radio today. He was asked about whether the De Menzes campaign had been hi jacked and did he have a problem that one of the people working for the family had worked for Gorgeous George Galloway.

Ken gave a spot on reply. He said didn't really care who worked for the family and they had a right to have anyone they wanted working for them. He said all that mattered was that we got to the bottom of how this terrible thing happened and how we could stop it happening again.


----------



## rebel warrior (Aug 24, 2005)

Japey said:
			
		

> The only person who can help the family's campaign is a good lawyer.  Anybody else is either deluding themselves or attempting to capitalise on the issue.
> 
> Maybe the Lib Dems haven't been clamouring to be seen at a vigil because they recognise this.



The fucking Lib Dems haven't been clamouring to be seen at a vigil because the fuckers are pro-Shoot to Kill as a policy.  

And Tee Jay too - FFS get a grip.


----------



## Herbert Read (Aug 24, 2005)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> The fucking Lib Dems haven't been clamouring to be seen at a vigil because the fuckers are pro-Shoot to Kill as a policy.
> 
> And Tee Jay too - FFS get a grip.



Why do you subject your self to this self harm


----------



## winjer (Aug 24, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> How would someone go about finding out?


Why don't you just ask them, if it bothers you that much?



> *Asad Rehman*


Definitely has been an SWP member, may well still be, but also chair of the Newham Monitoring Project and was involved in the Stephen Lawrence campaign.



> *Yasmin Khan*


Not SWP as far I'm aware - I've met her a few times and she's never tried to sell me a paper.



> Apparently the J4J website is registered to *Alistair Alexander*, a STWC press officer


Former press officer, I believe, no idea if he's SWP, and don't see the relevance of the person who happened to register a domain name, but has made no comment that I've seen.



> So, maybe or maybe not SWP (probably not by the look of it) but... the main point remains. This really does look like cynical bandwagon jumping and doesn't help the Justice4Jean cause - or more accurately the family's cause - in the slightest.


Where is your actual evidence of "cynical bandwagon jumping"? What would you have done differently, as an absolutely neutral apolitical angel?


----------



## winjer (Aug 24, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Apart from that I presume she is an excellent lawyer who doesn't hide her background and has no conflicts of interest or other agendas, and will behave in an exemplary professional manner.



 How can you claim that the other people involved have a conflict of interest because they happen to give a shit about Iraq and at the same time say that Gareth Peirce has no other agenda when she's currently representing seven of the ten the government is planning to deport to torturing regimes?


----------



## TeeJay (Aug 24, 2005)

Turning demands for justice over a shooting into rants about the Iraq war, using  Justice4Jean as yet another platform to shout at "Bush and Blair" = cynical bandwagon jumping and issue hijacking.

You are saying that therse people just "happen" to give a shit about Iraq - but this is bullshit: several of the vigils have specfically sort to make connections between Iraq and this shooting.

I think it is completely reasonable to say that the STWC, anti-Iraq-war, SWP/RUC/etc crowd would not be taking up positions and seeking to take over the organising of protests etc if this had simply been a shooting outside of the context of 7/7 and 21/7 - but the family would still want justice, there would still need to be the same kind of invstaigation and all the central and relevant issues would still exist. This clear shows that there is a deliberate attempt to hijack and exploit the issue - these people didn't "just happen" to turn up: they are career activists who have seen an opportunity to further their existing agendas and own careers. If they really gave a shit they could just as well have taken a supporting role and left the positions of spokepersons to people who wouldn't bring this BBC/tabloid/etc shitstorm down to tar the Justice4Jean campaign. It was completely foreseeable and totally avoidable as there are plenty of people without existing agendas and who could present themselves as purely interested in the issues at hand.

People on u75 have been criticisng the disgusting opportunism, bandwagonism and hijacking of SWP/RUC/STWC/et al for a long time now: Two-faced, dishonest and completely untrustworthy. Maybe at last the wider public will cotton on to what people here have been saying all along. I make no apology in letting people know what a fucking shower of shite the whole SWP/RUC/front-organisation-X are - along with anyone who knowingly involves themselves and works with them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Turning demands for justice over a shooting into rants about the Iraq war, using  Justice4Jean as yet another platform to shout at "Bush and Blair" = cynical bandwagon jumping and issue hijacking.
> 
> You are saying that therse people just "happen" to give a shit about Iraq - but this is bullshit: several of the vigils have specfically sort to make connections between Iraq and this shooting.
> 
> ...


i never knew you felt so strongly about the swappie scum, teejay.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 24, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> I think it is completely reasonable to say that the STWC, anti-Iraq-war, SWP/RUC/etc crowd would not be taking up positions and seeking to take over the organising of protests etc if this had simply been a shooting outside of the context of 7/7 and 21/7


Really? So other than this, they don't protest about police killings?

You're off your head.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Really? So other than this, they don't protest about police killings?


why should they?

everyone knows the swp work hand in glove with the filth.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 24, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> i never knew you felt so strongly about the swappie scum, teejay.


 I think tee jay just hates _everyone_ as it goes.

He's miles off in this case. And for once i agree with Donna - he _is_ off his head.


----------



## mk12 (Aug 24, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> why should they?
> 
> everyone knows the swp work hand in glove with the filth.


Do they?   

[ends subscription for Socialist Worker]


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> I think tee jay just hates _everyone_ as it goes.
> 
> He's miles off in this case


& not for the first time...


----------



## TeeJay (Aug 24, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Really? So other than this, they don't protest about police killings?
> 
> You're off your head.


So you are going to tell us about these other campaigns then?

I get the impression that the SWP or their front organisations will turn up to almost any kind of protest, demo or campaign and seek to take it over wherever possible.

However, if they can't take things over or if they aren't able to promote their own agenda then they seem to seek to wreck things, often by organising 'spoliers'.

Pickman's - its been a cumulative thing. The more I have found out about this shower and the more I have seen them in action I more I have grown to dislike them. Butchers - I have nothing to say to you other than to tell you to go fuck yourself. Anything more is an utter waste of time - at least many of the SWP posters here are capable of rational and coherent debate. You are not.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 24, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> So you are going to tell us about these other campaigns then?


This point is contradicted by...




			
				TeeJay said:
			
		

> I get the impression that the SWP or their front organisations will turn up to almost any kind of protest, demo or campaign and seek to take it over wherever possible.


...this one.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 24, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> So you are going to tell us about these other campaigns then?
> 
> I get the impression that the SWP or their front organisations will turn up to almost any kind of protest, demo or campaign and seek to take it over wherever possible.



You just said that they do nothing. Now you're arguing that they do too much.


----------



## TeeJay (Aug 24, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Really? So other than this, they don't protest about police killings?
> 
> You're off your head.


Donna, are you going to tell us about these other SWP campaigns and fronty organisations against police shootings?

I am genuine interested in you setting thre record straight. Maybe I am wrong to think that they wouldn't be getting involved if they didn't think they could link it to the Iraq war?

Maybe you could proviode some examples of the SWP taking a principled stand on this issue over a an extended period of time, and where they have supported various groups and campaigns which have been focussed on this issue?

I look forward to this information.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> many of the SWP posters here are capable of rational and coherent debate.


i fear yr confusing the swp posters here with other people.


----------



## mk12 (Aug 24, 2005)

Shudupayaface!


----------



## TeeJay (Aug 24, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> You just said that they do nothing. Now you're arguing that they do too much.


They do both: too much hijacking - nothing to genuinely support things.

What is their previous track record on police shootings and supporting other campaigns on this issue?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 24, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Donna, are you going to tell us about these other SWP campaigns and fronty organisations against police shootings?


Will police killings in general do? I seem to remember a high degree of involvement in the Christopher Alder business.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2005)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> Shudupayaface!


i think this proves my point.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 24, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> They do both: too much hijacking - nothing to genuinely support things.
> 
> What is their previous track record on police shootings and supporting other campaigns on this issue?


 I thought you already knew that and had based your posts on their record.Care to give us some examples of them hijacking cases of police shootings etc. I preseume you have some. Which cases did you base your posts on?


----------



## X-77 (Aug 24, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Will police killings in general do? I seem to remember a high degree of involvement in the Christopher Alder business.


Yeah, Janet Alder stood as respect candidate in Tottenham this year.


----------



## TeeJay (Aug 24, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> I thought you already knew that and had based your posts on their record.Care to give us some examples of them hijacking cases of police shootings etc. I preseume you have some. Which cases did you base your posts on?


What I actually said:






			
				TeeJay said:
			
		

> ...I think it is completely reasonable to say that the STWC, anti-Iraq-war, SWP/RUC/etc crowd would not be taking up positions and seeking to take over the organising of protests etc if this had simply been a shooting outside of the context of 7/7 and 21/7...


I said I am willing to stand corrected if Donna Ferentes wants to provide more information about other occasions when "the STWC, anti-Iraq-war, SWP/RUC/etc crowd" have got involved with police shootings and similar issues.

My impression is that this is a cynical bangwagon jumping and an attempt to tie Stockwell to Iraq.

I am willing to look at evidence that suggests that this bunch have supported these kinds of campaigns in the past and have supported them in a genuine way not just as a band-wagon/issue hijacking.


----------



## flimsier (Aug 24, 2005)

Teejay, search the Socialist worker website if you're really interested. It's not that hard and I'm not doing it for you, but there are front page stories (harry stanley), as well as plenty of pieces promoting action.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2005)

if standing about being told what to chant is yr idea of 'action'...


----------



## flimsier (Aug 24, 2005)

X-77 said:
			
		

> Yeah, Janet Alder stood as respect candidate in Tottenham this year.



Something actually criticised as the SWP 'imposing' a candidate because of the issue of her brother.

Criticised on here, I should add.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 24, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> What I actually said:I said I am willing to stand corrected if Donna Ferentes wants to provide more information about other occasions when "the STWC, anti-Iraq-war, SWP/RUC/etc crowd" have got involved with police shootings and similar issues.
> 
> My impression is that this is a cynical bangwagon jumping and an attempt to tie Stockwell to Iraq.
> 
> I am willing to look at evidence that suggests that this bunch have supported these kinds of campaigns in the past and have supported them in a genuine way not just as a band-wagon/issue hijacking.


 Seeing as you based your arguments on them not doing so in the past, in fact, on them doing something specific in those cases (none of which you seem able to mention) then i'm afraid that i'm not so convinced of your intentions. You should have looked at/for these cases first, not only when challenged. And i'm hardly known for my pro-SWP feelings.


----------



## flimsier (Aug 24, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> if standing about being told what to chant is yr idea of 'action'...



A different argument we've had many times.

I'd say there's one bandwagon jumper here, and I'm not accusing you for once.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2005)

flimsier said:
			
		

> A different argument we've had many times.


it isn't one we've had before...


> _
> I'd say there's one bandwagon jumper here, and I'm not accusing you for once._


name names!


----------



## flimsier (Aug 24, 2005)

TJ: I also recall stuff about the shootings in Gothenburg and Italy (which is covered in a book by Jonathan Neale that I think PM has read).


----------



## TeeJay (Aug 24, 2005)

Maybe I am wrong: Maybe they *always* seek to cynically bandwagon-jump/issue-hijack wherever and whenever they can and the fact that they couldn't link one hijackable issue (police shooting) to another (Iraq) wouldn't stop them?

I'm not so sure about STWC tho' - surely they have never been involved in other shooting campaigns, which would be understandable given that they are a campaign against the Iraq war.

Coming back to my main point: Would the STWC et al people have got involved with Justice4Jean if they couldn't somehow connect it to Iraq?

Do SWP et al get involved with *anything* that they can't hijack?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Do SWP et al get involved with *anything* that they can't hijack?


yes: but they always get involved with stuff with the intent of hijacking. never get on a plane with a load of swappies, for several obvious reasons!


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 24, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Do SWP et al get involved with *anything* that they can't hijack?


I've seen them involved in solidarity work for all sorts of campaigns over the last twenty years.

You're raving, man.


----------



## TeeJay (Aug 24, 2005)

flimsier said:
			
		

> I'd say there's one bandwagon jumper here, and I'm not accusing you for once.


Come on flimsier - at least have the guts to be clear who you are talking about, rather than hide behind your normal snideness and passive-aggressive crap, *pretending* that you aren't having a go at people, when you quite clearly are. Or are you deliberately trying to perpetually live up to your username?


----------



## flimsier (Aug 24, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Come on flimsier - at least have the guts to be clear who you are talking about, rather than hide behind your normal snideness and passive-aggressive crap, *pretending* that you aren't having a go at people, when you quite clearly are. Or are you deliberately trying to perpetually live up to your username?



If it's not clear enough for you, then there's no helping you.



> You're raving man



Doesn't this upset you any more?


----------



## TeeJay (Aug 24, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> You're raving, man.


Woo woo






*waves arms*


----------



## TeeJay (Aug 24, 2005)

flimsier said:
			
		

> Doesn't this upset you any more?


Oh just go fuck yourself flimsier - I'm not falling for your tired old "lets pretend to ask questions as snidey a way of prolonging opportunities to repeat insults" trick.

What the fuck do you think? But of course you don't need to ask that. You are a snide little shit aren't you? Pathetic, transparent and utterly contemptable.

Welcome back.


----------



## flimsier (Aug 24, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Oh just go fuck yourself flimsier - I'm not falling for your tired old "lets pretend to ask questions as snidey a way of prolonging opportunities to repeat insults" trick.
> 
> What the fuck do you think? But of course you don't need to ask that. You are a snide little shit aren't you? Pathetic, transparent and utterly contemptable.
> 
> Welcome back.



Why are you getting so upset? I didn't say it. You'd ban me.


----------



## TeeJay (Aug 24, 2005)

flimsier said:
			
		

> Why are you getting so upset? I didn't say it. You'd ban me.


To repeat: Oh just go fuck yourself flimsier - I'm not falling for your tired old "lets pretend to ask questions as snidey a way of prolonging opportunities to repeat insults" trick.

(BTW flimsier, you know full well I can't ban people)

Jeez, why I am even bothering talking to this arsehat?

*goes and does something - anything - more worthwhile*


----------



## flimsier (Aug 24, 2005)

I don't know what you are on about. I didn't say it.

Calm down will you. Take a pill or something.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 24, 2005)

You do appear to be ranting in a rather extreme fashion once more though tee Jay.


----------



## flimsier (Aug 24, 2005)

I only came on this thread to jump on the bandwagon of people accusing Tee Jay of jumping on the bandwagon by blindly going on about the SWP.




Ok, that makes 2, not 1.


----------



## TeeJay (Aug 24, 2005)

flimsier said:
			
		

> Calm down will you. Take a pill or something.


*Cunt reported*


----------



## flimsier (Aug 24, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> *Cunt reported*



 

Why?


----------



## TeeJay (Aug 24, 2005)

flimsier said:
			
		

> Why?


To repeat: Oh just go fuck yourself flimsier - I'm not falling for your tired old "lets pretend to ask questions as snidey a way of prolonging opportunities to repeat insults" trick.

(BTW flimsier, you know full well I can't ban people)

Jeez, why I am even bothering talking to this arsehat?

*goes and does something - anything - more worthwhile*


----------



## flimsier (Aug 24, 2005)

I still don't understand why you have reported me. Are you not being a little sensitive? 

I haven't called you a cunt, or anything actually, except a bandwagon jumper - and I've even called myself that.


----------



## munkeeunit (Aug 24, 2005)

Well, this debate has degenerated into the usual hate-in between the usual suspects. It is possible to work with the SWP and not get hijacked, but it's a tiring business and you have to keep your wits about you.

What is equally frustrating is the self-fullfilling prohesy of most anarchists who run a mile the moment they get the whiff of the SWP, thereby guaranteeing that campaigns get hijacked by default if nothing else.


----------



## TeeJay (Aug 24, 2005)

flimsier said:
			
		

> I still don't understand why you have reported me. Are you not being a little sensitive?


To repeat: Oh just go fuck yourself flimsier - I'm not falling for your tired old "lets pretend to ask questions as snidey a way of prolonging opportunities to repeat insults" trick.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 24, 2005)

munkeeunit - I'd disagree with the word "hijacked" but otherwise I'd have said that's a position I could largely agree with.


----------



## flimsier (Aug 24, 2005)

munkeeunit said:
			
		

> Well, this debate has degenerated into the usual hate-in between the usual suspects. It is possible to work with the SWP and not get hijacked, but it's a tiring business and you have to keep your wits about you.
> 
> What is equally frustrating is the self-fullfilling prohesy of most anarchists who run a mile the moment they get the whiff of the SWP, thereby guaranteeing that campaigns get hijacked by default if nothing else.



I agree with this, and I think it applies to working with most large groups - it's almost inevitable.

There was a really good thread a long time ago (which I never contributed to) which went on about why it didn't have to happen that the largest group in any campaign would become almost dictatorial.


----------



## Random (Aug 24, 2005)

munkeeunit said:
			
		

> What is equally frustrating is the self-fullfilling prohesy of most anarchists who run a mile the moment they get the whiff of the SWP, thereby guaranteeing that campaigns get hijacked by default if nothing else.



Abso-fucking-lutely, x100,000


----------



## flimsier (Aug 24, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> To repeat: Oh just go fuck yourself flimsier - I'm not falling for your tired old "lets pretend to ask questions as snidey a way of prolonging opportunities to repeat insults" trick.



But why report me?


----------



## TeeJay (Aug 24, 2005)

flimsier said:
			
		

> But why report me?


To repeat: Oh just go fuck yourself flimsier - I'm not falling for your tired old "lets pretend to ask questions as snidey a way of prolonging opportunities to repeat insults" trick.
  jeez this is like talking to a fucking dog - a retarded dog at that.

OK flimsier - this will be the last one: I am really not interested in playing your pathetic games. Go fuck yourself. Don't bother asking me any more pathetic dribble questions. If you want to find out what the mods think about things I report then go and talk to them. Talking to you is about as much fun as scraping shit off the bottom of my shoe.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 24, 2005)

Why did you report _him_ tee jay?


----------



## flimsier (Aug 24, 2005)

You've insulted me about half a dozen times now. What's the matter with you?

Did you lose the argument?


----------



## past caring (Aug 24, 2005)

Or did he just lose it?


----------



## Random (Aug 24, 2005)

Why did TJ report Flims?


----------



## IntoStella (Aug 24, 2005)

I'm amazed this thread is back like an old verucca.  

For the record, personally, I am not right wing (that old trot staple  ) or an anarchist.


----------



## exosculate (Aug 24, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> *Cunt reported*




Can you prove that?


----------



## exosculate (Aug 24, 2005)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> I'm amazed this thread is back like an old verucca.
> 
> For the record, personally, I am not right wing (that old trot staple  ) or an anarchist.




Antichrist?


----------



## exosculate (Aug 24, 2005)

Random said:
			
		

> Why did TJ report Flims?



Cos he can't hack the rough and tumble of things.


----------



## exosculate (Aug 24, 2005)

past caring said:
			
		

> Or did he just lose it?




I think he lost his mummy!


----------



## exosculate (Aug 24, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Why did you report _him_ tee jay?




Do you expect an answer?


----------



## past caring (Aug 24, 2005)

_Very_ good take-off of Teej's posting style there, exo....


----------



## exosculate (Aug 24, 2005)

past caring said:
			
		

> _Very_ good take-off of Teej's posting style there, exo....




thankyouverymuchindeed

*bows*


----------



## flimsier (Aug 24, 2005)

I haven't had my wrist slapped or owt yet, so I presume there's no hidden meaning in my post that I wasn't aware of.


----------



## past caring (Aug 24, 2005)

flimsier said:
			
		

> I haven't had my wrist slapped or owt yet, so I presume there's no hidden meaning in my post *that I wasn't aware of.*


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 24, 2005)

Nasty stuff. What allegedly went on and the usual resorting to bitter attacks.

Interesting reading though but sadly all too predictable.


----------



## flimsier (Aug 24, 2005)

past caring said:
			
		

>



 

I thought I was being clever there.


----------



## rebel warrior (Aug 24, 2005)

The Sun today had a big page on 'Lefties Hijack Menezes Family campaign' with shock horror 'Muslim Marxist' stories about Asad Rehman, quoting lots of Tory MPs about how 'justice' was the last thing on the minds of the supporters of the family.  

Given that, I think the anti-capitalist movement has some sort of fucking duty to stand with the Justice4Jean campaign - if it wasn't in general doing so anyway.  TJ is a fucking scabby scab with respect to this issue - and he should be treated that way.


----------



## TeeJay (Aug 25, 2005)

I haven't read any newspapers this week or last, so I am in no way positioning myself relative to anything they say or anyone they quote, nor trying to support them.

Maybe these two people really have come in with entirely innocent and well-meaning intentions and aren't trying to link the shooting with their own separate agendas: however, have they even said anything about this? Did they even think about how it would look to the casual observer and what impact it would have on Justice4Jean? Have they been organising protests with banners about Iraq and harranging "Bush and Blair" etc, or pushing to include linkages wherever possible to their pre-existing campaigns?

Why don't they simply come out and set the record straight about these things?


----------



## X-77 (Aug 25, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Why don't they simply come out and set the record straight about these things?


why aren't you more worried about the police coming out and 'setting the record straight' with regard to shooting an entirely innocent man dead with numerous bullets to the head FFS? What is this obsession about the spokespeople all about?? Can't you tell a smear when you see one?


----------



## TeeJay (Aug 27, 2005)

X-77 said:
			
		

> why aren't you more worried about the police coming out and 'setting the record straight' with regard to shooting an entirely innocent man dead with numerous bullets to the head FFS? What is this obsession about the spokespeople all about?? Can't you tell a smear when you see one?


Of course I am more worried about the investigation - and in fact a whole bunch of other issues across the planet. However here and now we are discussing *this* specific topic, and I'd argue that having a clear and upfront statement addressing things would *help* empower the Justice4Jean cause. Trying to pretend that there aren't even any issues of concern - or maybe not actually wanting to deny that there has been an effort to link Stockwell and Iraq - IMO disempowers the Justice4Jean cause, which is a shame.

I'm not against the aims of Justice4Jean - I'm against people damaging these aims by tacking on issues, being evasive, giving a massive gift to people who would want to knock them, potentially alienating people and otherwise appearing to further their own agendas at the expense of the family and of seeking justice.

At the very least I'd like to see a clear and definitive statement by the two people named in Newsnight and the papers setting things straight. Why can't they do this - it would take about 5 minutes ffs! They could come and post it here!


----------



## winjer (Aug 27, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> What I actually said:I said I am willing to stand corrected if Donna Ferentes wants to provide more information about other occasions when "the STWC, anti-Iraq-war, SWP/RUC/etc crowd" have got involved with police shootings and similar issues.



Oh, FFS. http://google.com/search?q=+site:socialistworker.co.uk+"justice+for+harry+stanley"



> I am willing to look at evidence that suggests that this bunch have supported these kinds of campaigns in the past and have supported them in a genuine way not just as a band-wagon/issue hijacking.



Whether their support was genuine or not I can't say, I suggest you look for yourself.


----------



## winjer (Aug 27, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Turning demands for justice over a shooting into rants about the Iraq war, using Justice4Jean as yet another platform to shout at "Bush and Blair" = cynical bandwagon jumping and issue hijacking.
> 
> You are saying that therse people just "happen" to give a shit about Iraq - but this is bullshit: several of the vigils have specfically sort to make connections between Iraq and this shooting.


But the people who've done that have been openly STWC/RUC/SWP, at events they had organised/called on the 25th and 28th of July, the latter being explicitly to "Stop Shoot To Kill, Stop The Bombings, Troops out of Iraq".

The J4J campaign has, to my knowledge, organised/called two events: a vigil & memorial on 29th July and Monday's demonstration at Downing Street. I'm not sure about the 29th, but on Monday there were some people with SWP "No.1 terrorist" and "Bliars!" placards but they were a tiny minority, perhaps 15 out of 200. What practically do you think the organisers could have done about it? Should they have confronted the swappies in front of the assembled press?


----------



## TeeJay (Aug 27, 2005)

winjer said:
			
		

> But the people who've done that have been openly STWC/RUC/SWP, at events they had organised/called on the 25th and 28th of July, the latter being explicitly to "Stop Shoot To Kill, Stop The Bombings, Troops out of Iraq".


But this is exactly the point. If you have some people who are "openly" STWC doing one thing, can't you see why people will get suspicious if there are other people who are *not* "openly" STWC. It looks like one bunch are trying to work by being open while their mates are going 'undercover' and pursuing the same agenda but pretending they are simply spokespeople for the family, rather than first and foremost politicos with pre-existing axes to grind. There will also be suspicisons that these people are even coordinating things behind the backs of the family and ultimately without really caring about a decent investigation or justice being done - suspicions that they first and foremost want to campaign about Iraq, capitalism and multinationals and are using J4J as a 'front'.


----------



## nosos (Aug 28, 2005)

So is your criticism a pragmatic one or a moral one? In a sense I can see what you're saying but it doesn't really seem to be anything of much substance: if you had some involvment in the campaign and/or you were discussing the tactics of the campaign then I could see your point but as is . . .


----------



## IMHO (Aug 28, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> ... are so far away from day to day realities they forget how normal people think


CLASSIC QUOTE. Required reading for all "revolutionaries"


----------



## X-77 (Aug 29, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> I'm not against the aims of Justice4Jean - I'm against people damaging these aims by tacking on issues, being evasive, giving a massive gift to people who would want to knock them, potentially alienating people and otherwise appearing to further their own agendas at the expense of the family and of seeking justice.
> 
> At the very least I'd like to see a clear and definitive statement by the two people named in Newsnight and the papers setting things straight. Why can't they do this - it would take about 5 minutes ffs! They could come and post it here!


Asad Rehman wrote in to the Guardian last year to have a go at those people who labelled the anarchist storming of the UAF meeting as 'racist' and to raise geninue concerns about the way the London ESF was organised. It seems to me that this guy is his own person, he doesn't seem to be following anyone's set 'agenda' - but this is just my impression of him. This is the letter:


> We are appalled at Lee Jasper's attempts to silence genuine criticisms of this year's ESF by playing the race card (Letters, October 19).
> 
> Any form of physical aggression is obviously to be condemned, but the direct action protest against Ken Livingstone's abortive participation in the ESF session on racism and fascism had nothing to do with race and everything to do with the undemocratic way in which the ESF was organised this year.
> 
> ...


http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,1331886,00.html


----------



## TeeJay (Aug 30, 2005)

Pity he hasn't written any letters recently.


----------



## treelover (Aug 30, 2005)

Only, three weeks to the super soaraway STWC demo, doesn't look like its got legs yets, 10,000 max?


----------



## justuname (Aug 30, 2005)

winjer said:
			
		

> on Monday there were some people with SWP "No.1 terrorist" and "Bliars!" placards but they were a tiny minority, perhaps 15 out of 200. What practically do you think the organisers could have done about it? Should they have confronted the swappies in front of the assembled press?



Not posted before, so this is a bit of a test.

Not a lot. They stopped "Lambeth Stop the war", a knee jerk swp attempt to run any campaign that might start against the shooting - that was an important victory. They now seem to have a genuine, socialist and democrat based, but not swp dominated, campaign, resulting in their  activities being downplayed or ignored by the swp (but mentioned on the respect website, no doubt because asad is involved in it). That means there is a chance of a campaign on a critical issue of democratic rights genuinely based on the wishes of the family and involving communities rather being a front for a cult that just can't do that sort of thing (need to mechanically 'generalise' all the time). Result!

In my experience the swp never get involved in anything unless they control it.  Stuff like j18 they just airbrush out of history. It's a shame, because they are pretty big compared with other groups and i agree with a lot of what they say. But I tell ya, start a campaign around a genuine issue and don't let them run it and you'll see just how sectarian, in the real sense of that word, the swp can be. Just see how they try to marginalise this one, which has a leading respect person involved.

hope this works...


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 30, 2005)

Having been in Brixton Stop The War for a long time, which included a small number of SWP people who worked very well with other people, I can confidently state that that's a load of old bollocks.


----------



## justuname (Aug 30, 2005)

Shot down in 13 minutes!


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 30, 2005)

Lousy by clay pigeon standards. Probably average for a pilot in the Great War....


----------



## winjer (Aug 30, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> But this is exactly the point. If you have some people who are "openly" STWC doing one thing, can't you see why people will get suspicious if there are other people who are *not* "openly" STWC. It looks like one bunch are trying to work by being open while their mates are going 'undercover' and pursuing the same agenda but pretending they are simply spokespeople for the family, rather than first and foremost politicos with pre-existing axes to grind.


Thankfully those suspicions are bollocks, the Menezes family aren't stupid as you make them out, and the J4J campaign isn't an elaborate conspiracy to advance Proje't K.

You were claiming that the campaign is a front, are you now criticising it simply for not actively denying being a front?


----------



## TeeJay (Aug 31, 2005)

From the Justice4Jean website:



> The campaign aims to:
> 
> - find out the truth about Jean’s unlawful killing
> 
> ...


 http://www.justice4jean.com/?page_id=5

I find it reassuring that J4J isn't seeking to campaign about Iraq and that it feels it worthwhile to point out that it is not affiliated to any political party, and that its activists are independent.

I am still not sure that I believe that all of the 'activists' are however, or that they all share these same aims and objectives. Maybe ultimately it is impossible to know for sure and comes down to a matter of trust and credibility. Maybe I find it hard to trust anyone who is so closely linked to Galloway et al?


----------



## flimsier (Aug 31, 2005)

Well done.


----------



## TeeJay (Aug 31, 2005)

Well done what?


----------



## flimsier (Aug 31, 2005)

Well you've spent about 4 pages saying nothing at all.

But well done for retracting the bullshit you were originally stating. Perhaps you should look at some facts before you start next time.


----------



## TeeJay (Aug 31, 2005)

As ever flimiser comes onto a thread and tries to derail it with vaccuous personal attacks. I see you have next to nothing to say about the issue, other than being snide. How about you set out these "facts" for everyone flimsier? Or would this entail actually formulating a post that had some content - something you hate doing and avoid at all costs?

or in other words:

To repeat: Oh just go fuck yourself flimsier - I'm not falling for your tired old "lets pretend to ask questions as snidey a way of prolonging opportunities to repeat insults" trick.

(except this time you have actually managed to say something rather hide it behind a question - well done.)


----------



## flimsier (Aug 31, 2005)

Biggest contradictions of all time?

Why don't you report me, Tee jay


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 31, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> they're worse than that.


i have always thoght they were the islam of radical politics it was no suprise when they joined forces with islamic groups much like the teachings of islam must be preserved at all costs so it seems time and time again this is the motto of the swappies...


----------



## extremehijacker (Sep 2, 2005)

*justice4jean*

Hey

Just to set the record straight (this aint a world exclusive mind), we haven't gone around refuting claims about me and asad because

1.  We are not the issue.  The issue is that an innocent man was killed

2. It doesn't matter who helps the family: Tories, Trots, Anarchists, Trainspotters, the family are intelligent people who deserve some respect for being able to make decisions about what happens to their campaign.

3.  No one would believe what we said anyway!

....................................................................................................
The J4J campaign is not just me and asad, its a wide group of committed social justice and anti racist campaigners with a history of supporting families who have gone through similar issues (Asad was co-ordinatoru of the Stephen Lawrence Campaign for example and Newham Monitoring Project people have done many deaths in custody cases). No one is a member of the SWP. 

In fact, the irony of all this STWC/SWP hijacking is that when we were trying to collect money for the funeral and memorial for jean and to send the family back to brazil and did a phone around every campaigning group in london the STWC refuses to give us any money at all.  Which is fine, as they said they were skint... but you know, its hardly involvement or hijacking if we can't even get a tenner donation from em.  

The J4J campaign encourages all the communities of london to come along to our events from whatever political background or none. 

When it all kicked off in the press last week, the family campaign did send out one press release about all the bollocks with a statment from the family saying that this was their campaign and they were not being manipulated and a brief outlight of the J4J campaign.  Needless to say this didn't get reported.

All of this is so irrelevant though isn't it?  

The issues are how we find out the truth and get justice for an innocent man who was killed. 

I'd encourage all those interested in the campaign (even with doubts!) to sign up to the email list justice4jean@hotmail.co.uk and find out about when the next event will be happening (we almost certainly will have a family public meeting in stockwell in the next few weeks) and then you can hear from the family and find out for yourselves

cheers

Yasmin Khan


----------



## Groucho (Sep 2, 2005)

extremehijacker said:
			
		

> Hey
> 
> Just to set the record straight (this aint a world exclusive mind), we haven't gone around refuting claims about me and asad because
> 
> ...



Thanks for putting the record straight.

Best wishes for the campaign.

Welcome to the boards.


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 2, 2005)

extremehijacker, thanks for bothering to come and post here.

I'm slightly perplexed about your comment that...





> No one would believe what we said anyway!


Surely the point is that you are spokespersons with the aim of being credible. If you don't think that you are credible or would be believed by people, why not take a more back seat role and let others who would be more 'acceptable' be the public face of J4J?


> The J4J campaign is not just me and asad, its a wide group of committed social justice and anti racist campaigners with a history of supporting families who have gone through similar issues (Asad was co-ordinatoru of the Stephen Lawrence Campaign for example and Newham Monitoring Project people have done many deaths in custody cases). No one is a member of the SWP.


Thanks for setting this straight. 


> All of this is so irrelevant though isn't it?


No. All of this is highly relevant. Why on earth didn't you say all this at the time?


> I'd encourage all those interested in the campaign (even with doubts!) to sign up to the email list justice4jean@hotmail.co.uk and find out about when the next event will be happening (we almost certainly will have a family public meeting in stockwell in the next few weeks) and then you can hear from the family and find out for yourselves


You are going to keep the wesbite up to date? This is the mopst obvious place for people to check what you are doing. Last time it looked it didn't really seem to have much on it.

I'm sorry if I look like I am being two-faced here, but the fact is that I am very sympathetic towards the J4J objectives - but at the same time I don't have much time at all for the SWP, Respect and unfortunately by extension the STWC in that it is largely run by the same people - I also don't agree with their perspective on Iraq.

You have now made a clear statement (if I understand correctly) that J4J is not linked to these issues and organsations and that you are acting in a personal capacity and are not trying to link J4J to any other agenda. Thank you for bothering to come here and make this statement.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2005)

"I'm sorry if I look like I am being two-faced here,"

You most certainly do teejay. At last some self-awareness on your part. I suggest that you re-read you posts on this and other threads and that you then feel suitably ashamed of yourself and apologise. You drew your last defenders on this forum too far on this one.


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 2, 2005)

Oh fuck off butchers! You have never been one of my defenders - quite the opposite. I don't really have much more to add by way of an apology than I have posted already. I am really not interested in having a pathetic handbag-fight with you. I know how much you love them but unless you actually have anything relevant to say about J4J I am really not interested. As it happens, now that there has been a very clear statement that the SWP/RUC/STWC et al have no connection with J4J, and that J4J doesn't have an anti-Iraq agenda, I am actually very happy to give J4J my support, and I'd hope that others would to. Yes this could be seen as a u-turn from my previous suspicion, but this is due to having ther record set straight - something that I requested was done, and which one of the two people it was aimed at have actually bothered coming here and responding to. They actually have something to say - unlike you butchers, who is simply looking for any excuse to have a pointless fight.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Oh fuck off butchers! You have never been one of my defenders - quite the opposite. I don't really have much more to add by way of an apology than I have posted already. I am really not interested in having a pathetic handbag-fight with you. I know how much you love them but unless you actually have anything relevant to say about J4J I am really not interested. As it happens, now that there has been a very clear statement that the SWP/RUC/STWC et al have no connection with J4J, and that J4J doesn't have an anti-Iraq agenda, I am actually very happy to give J4J my support, and I'd hope that others would to. Yes this could be seen as a u-turn from my previous suspicion, but this is due to having ther record set straight - something that I requested was done, and which one of the two people it was aimed at have actually bothered coming here and responding to. They actually have something to say - unlike you butchers, who is simply looking for any excuse to have a pointless fight.




First off, i never claimed to be one of your defenders. I claimed that you'd driven off the last of them with your rabid behaviour as regards the J4J issue and your behaviour on threads discussing just that. And i think you have.

Secondly, you've been proven to be totally and uterly 100% wrong. You claim this is as a result of "having ther record set straight" - something which had already been done, and which people asked _you_ to do before jumping to conclusions. But you didn't. You blustered onwards.

Your postion on this and other threads was akin to me claiming that every campaign that you'd been involved in was motivated by chance to get up to kiddy fiddling and theft - but that i'd be happy to see evidence that you weren't. In the absence of that evidence (that it's impossible to suplly btw) then i'd be forced to stand by my claims. 

You're sneaky, you're dishonest. This case highlights your total lack of morals and your increasingly rabid behavior. 

Take a look at yourself. You are a fucking disgrace.


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 2, 2005)

So nothing to say about J4J? Why am I not surprised? Sorry butchers, I am not going to bother having this fight with you. You'll have to go and pick one with someone else. I'm happy to talk about J4J, but I doubt you have anything to say on the matter do you?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> So nothing to say about J4J? Why am I not surprised? Sorry butchers, I am not going to bother having this fight with you. You'll have to go and pick one with someone else. I'm happy to talk about J4J, but I doubt you have anything to say on the matter do you?


 You mean like your page after page after page of attacking them, of attacking Gareth Piece because she has a fringe that hangs over her eyes hiding the evilness within - no then, i guess i just don't have anything that would match your undoubted committment to the cause.


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 2, 2005)

So you really don't have anything to say about J4J?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2005)

Do you? Sorry would be nice.


----------



## Phototropic (Sep 2, 2005)

Bloody hell TeeJay this has certianly been an interesting thread to read. never have I seen someone do quite so accurate impression of this little guy


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2005)

Watch the whole thing teej.


----------



## flimsier (Sep 2, 2005)

He'll report you.


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 2, 2005)

I've just re-read all my posts on this thread. Anyone care to point out the specific posts which they think I should apologise for? Anyone have anything relevant to say about J4J?


----------



## rebel warrior (Sep 2, 2005)

Apologising for trying to shove heaps of steaming shitty Right wing pro police propaganda down our throats would be a start...


----------



## winjer (Sep 2, 2005)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> Apologising for trying to shove heaps of steaming shitty Right wing pro police propaganda down our throats would be a start...


Is the Stop The War Coalition going to apologise for trying to take political advantage of the situation? If not, will you distance yourself from those responsible?

I'm not referring to the accusations levelled at the J4J campaign in the press, but the execrable troops-out-nonvigil on the 25th July, the offensive 'Bliars' placards, and the entirely false claim on the current 'March for Peace & Liberty' flyers which under the heading 'Defend Civil Liberties' says 'One innocent man has already paid with his life for "increased police powers". If these new measures go through, more injustice will be visited on us all."


----------



## X-77 (Sep 2, 2005)

winjer said:
			
		

> Is the Stop The War Coalition going to apologise for trying to take political advantage of the situation? If not, will you distance yourself from those responsible?
> 
> I'm not referring to the accusations levelled at the J4J campaign in the press, but the execrable troops-out-nonvigil on the 25th July, the offensive 'Bliars' placards, and the entirely false claim on the current 'March for Peace & Liberty' flyers which under the heading 'Defend Civil Liberties' says 'One innocent man has already paid with his life for "increased police powers". If these new measures go through, more injustice will be visited on us all."


why should they apologise? Why shouldn't they draw the links? It's all quite clearly connected isn't it?? 

Should stwc just not talk about the London bombings/shoot-to-kill/Jean Charles/erosion of civil liberties for fear of being accused of being bandwagon jumpers and hijackers etc?

It would be quite bizarre and very disappointing if they didn't talk about these very worrying developments imo.

What's the 'entirely false claim' btw?


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 2, 2005)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> Apologising for trying to shove heaps of steaming shitty Right wing pro police propaganda down our throats would be a start...


Like I said - would you care to point out the *specific* posts I should be apologising for? I can't recall saying anything about the police on this thread - but feel to point out to everyone which posts you are referring to. Likewise, maybe you could explain which posts have been "right wing" and why you are describing them as such - unless you are claiming that anyone who doesn't support the SWP/RUC or their front groups is automatically 'counter-revolutionary' and therefore automaticially "right wing".


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2005)

Anything to say to/about the J4J campaign teej? Do you have anything relevant to say about J4J? Nope, nothing at all. Just as i thought.

(Or are only you allowed to roll out that one?)


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 2, 2005)

I have said plenty about it. What exactly do you want me to add? Or is this just you trying to pick a pointless fight with me for purely personal reasons? I've already told you butchers, I am not interested.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> I have said plenty about it. What exactly do you want me to add? Or is this just you trying to pick a pointless fight with me for purely personal reasons? I've already told you butchers, I am not interested.


 Yes, you have said plenty. All relentlessly negative and smeary except for the above u-turn. A  u-turn not followed by an apology, but by an argument that says that you were right to be wrong.

What do i want you to add? Say sorry. Say that you were wrong and say it here.


----------



## winjer (Sep 2, 2005)

X-77 said:
			
		

> Why shouldn't they draw the links? It's all quite clearly connected isn't it??


No it isn't, except in the sense that the state is responsible for all those deaths, but the STWC was supposed to be a broad-based anti-war campaign, not a political alternative to the Labour Party.

Unless it's all just a front for something else... _minor chord_.



> _What's the 'entirely false claim' btw?_


That Jean Charles de Menezes was executed because of anti-terror legislation, the implication being that the shoot-to-kill policy has some basis in law.


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 3, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Yes, you have said plenty. All relentlessly negative and smeary except for the above u-turn. A  u-turn not followed by an apology, but by an argument that says that you were right to be wrong.
> 
> What do i want you to add? Say sorry. Say that you were wrong and say it here.


So you are completely unable to set out which posts I should apologise for and what exactly I 'got wrong'? You can't even exaplin what my u-turn is? You are a fucking joke.


----------



## winjer (Sep 3, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> So you are completely unable to set out which posts I should apologise for and what exactly I 'got wrong'? You can't even exaplin what my u-turn is? You are a fucking joke.


It'd be the posts where you suggested that the Menezes family are dumb foreigners, and accused the people helping them of being two-faced liars, at a guess.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 3, 2005)

Yep, that'd be the ones.

"I'm sorry if I look like I am being two-faced here..."


----------



## past caring (Sep 3, 2005)

It's some fucking achievement, getting people like me and butchers more or less on the same side as webel - well done Teej.


----------



## exosculate (Sep 3, 2005)

past caring said:
			
		

> It's some fucking achievement, getting people like me and butchers more or less on the same side as webel - well done Teej.




Stop ganging up - it aint nice.


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 3, 2005)

winjer said:
			
		

> It'd be the posts where you suggested that the Menezes family are dumb foreigners, and accused the people helping them of being two-faced liars, at a guess.


Provide some actual quotes or stop fucking lying.


----------



## TeeJay (Sep 3, 2005)

past caring said:
			
		

> It's some fucking achievement, getting people like me and butchers more or less on the same side as webel - well done Teej.


Why? You're both clueless fuckwitted cunts who have a personal problem with me. Birds of a feather.


----------

