# Wales Social Forum



## militant atheist (Apr 26, 2006)

Just a quick plug for the Wales Social Forum being held in Aberystwyth over the weekend.  Full programme here:http://www.socialforumcymru.org.uk/index.php?listday=sa&iaith=eng&page=timetable

Anyone going?  We're planning on going to the Trident Replacement session on the Saturday afternoon.


----------



## Col_Buendia (May 3, 2006)

Any feedback on this? I heard negative reports about some people's behaviour being less than what might be hoped for...


----------



## munkeeunit (May 3, 2006)

Col_Buendia said:
			
		

> Any feedback on this? I heard negative reports about some people's behaviour being less than what might be hoped for...



some people's behaviour is always less than what some people hope for. It's a very subjective thing.

It would be interesting to know more, being involved in the Bristol Social Forum (or more accurately the egroup as no meetings are held at present), but pointless rows over who said what to who, bruised egos and the apolitical comoplaints of those oversensitive to raucous criticism, are in my opinion often more disruptive in the long run than whatever caused the initial row.


----------



## Col_Buendia (May 3, 2006)

MU - I wasn't there, but I've heard back from two people who were there, and I am not talking about "bruised egos" and differences of opinion on the cricket 

I was told by a witness that Jill Evans, the MEP, was called a bitch to her face during a public meeting. That sort of behaviour is unacceptable for me, and I'm just glad I wasn't there cos I'd probably have lost my temper with that sort of behaviour.

Believe me, it's not an anarcho/SWP bunfight I'm referring to here, I'm more than happy to play the trot-baiting game! In this case I heard about behaviour that is not really a matter for "subjective" debate, but that is objectively well out of order.

Anyway, seeing as I'm not in a position to elaborate from a 1st person perspective, I'll leave it there. But I'd be curious for feedback from the OP.


----------



## munkeeunit (May 3, 2006)

Yes, feedback is needed.

Bristol Social Forum does have a respect guideline, which I supported, but cautiously, as I've seen too many meetings completely derailed by people demanding adherence to a very middle class and deeply patronising breed of etiquette.

Some people won't even tolerate flamboyant body language without trashing the meeting with a highly disruptive and subjective demand that they behave in a 'non-threatening' way. 

Which is often nothing better than class politics and middle class patronage by alternative means.

But calling someone a bitch is just plain nasty by any standard.


----------



## niclas (May 3, 2006)

I didn't make it myself but heard some v good things about the event - 750+ attending and not one paper seller amongst 'em (going north of Brecon gives Trots nosebleeds apparently). Moazzem Begg spoke well to more than 150 people, raising the bigger picture rather than his own awful tale in Guantanamo.

There was conflict when someone from Cardiff was thrown out of the squat (an old pub)... it may have had something to do with the all-night whisky session he'd had the night before. 

The only other negative vibe is that everything was pretty spread out across Aber, but overall there was a very positive feeling about it all.


----------



## Col_Buendia (May 3, 2006)

Aye, my Cardiff mates who went up came back totally jealous of their squatted centre! 

And the all-night whisky sesh you're referring to may not be unconnected to the story I heard of the abusive/sexist language...


----------



## Redstar (May 4, 2006)

niclas said:
			
		

> I didn't make it myself but heard some v good things about the event - 750+ attending and not one paper seller amongst 'em (going north of Brecon gives Trots nosebleeds apparently). Moazzem Begg spoke well to more than 150 people, raising the bigger picture rather than his own awful tale in Guantanamo.
> 
> There was conflict when someone from Cardiff was thrown out of the squat (an old pub)... it may have had something to do with the all-night whisky session he'd had the night before.
> 
> The only other negative vibe is that everything was pretty spread out across Aber, but overall there was a very positive feeling about it all.



 Yep, it was a good event, no swoppies for miles around and the squat was a nice touch. I get the feeling the incident people are referring to was the Sunday night sesh at the Palas y Bobl squat where "Spanish" Wayne Jenkins grabbed one of the squat organisers by the throat and verbally abused everyone else. Interesting night and I found myself in the unusual position of having to defend a squat full of young English kids from an abusive elderly Welshman.

 It's a topsy turvy world we live in...


----------



## llantwit (May 4, 2006)

Glad it went well - that's great.
  @ mexican/spanish W**** for being a tosser and pissing people off yet again.


----------



## munkeeunit (May 4, 2006)

Redstar said:
			
		

> Yep, it was a good event, no swoppies for miles around



The SWP very much kept away from the Bristol Social Forum, except to turn up to the first organising meting and to try and convince everyone it shouldn't be launched, meaning that they perceived it as a threat to RESPECT somehow.

As mentioned the BSF is not currently holding meetings, but we do have a very large and successful egroup of 600 subscribers, and the SWP are being slowly drawn back in. People may well rejoice at the absence of the SWP, but should also be aware of their own hyprocrisy in doing so. 

Social Forums are meant to be inclusive. The SWP's preferred philosophy in any organisation or movement may be, to quote animal farm, that everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.

The point is to reduce the SWP back to a position of equality.

Also, just to come back to the BSF egroup. Just about all egroups around the country are atrociously managed, with absent moderators, people subjected to everyone's else's viruse's and no concept that people do not have enough time in the day to trawl through an endless stream of individual emails.

The potential organising power of egroups are entirely squandered almost everywhere, and events like this, nomatter how succesful have a tendency to come and go, with very little in the sense of long term sustainability ever achieved. I hope this event was different.

Bristol Social Forum:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bristolsocialforum
(Welshies are also very welcome, especially if you are geographically close to us)


----------



## nogojones (May 4, 2006)

> I get the feeling the incident people are referring to was the Sunday night sesh at the Palas y Bobl squat where "Spanish" Wayne Jenkins grabbed one of the squat organisers by the throat and verbally abused everyone else. Interesting night and I found myself in the unusual position of having to defend a squat full of young English kids from an abusive elderly Welshman



Is that the older guy in Cardiff who cycles around with a berret and on occation does a bit of painitng and decorating?


----------



## osterberg (May 4, 2006)

llantwit said:
			
		

> Glad it went well - that's great.
> @ mexican/spanish W**** for being a tosser and pissing people off yet again.



 He is indeed a total wanker.One of the reasons I stopped going to Cardiff Social forum.With the ridiculous consensus decision making system where voting is banned(and very few decisions are actually made) a tosser like Wayne can make meetings last literally _hours._

 So I rejoined the SWP which is not a pointless talking shop like the CSF but an activist organisation where I get a vote.

And another thing , if Bristol SWP as munkeeunit says, are being drawn back into the Bristol Social Forum they are making a big mistake.

_<runs and hides>_


----------



## munkeeunit (May 4, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> He is indeed a total wanker.One of the reasons I stopped going to Cardiff Social forum.With the ridiculous consensus decision making system where voting is banned(and very few decisions are actually made) a tosser like Wayne can make meetings last literally _hours._
> 
> So I rejoined the SWP which is not a pointless talking shop like the CSF but an activist organisation where I get a vote.
> 
> ...



Everyone is welcome to use the Bristol Social Forum egroup and to publicise their events to all 600 subscribers. Not very painful, or difficult to grasp as a concept. No voting *or* consensus decision making is involved.

The issue of consensus over voting is a complex one, and all you have done is say you prefer to vote. Fair enough, just so long as you don't abuse the vote as the SWP so often do by packing meetings with party members where votes take place amongst diverse groups.

Consensus decision making is clunky and time consuming, but people often choose consensus over voting precisely because groups like the SWP pack meetings and distort the outcomes of votes amongst diverse groups.

If groups like the SWP don't like consensus decision making the solution is quite simple in the long run. If groups like the SWP stop abusing the voting process amongst diverse groups, then the demand for consensus decision making will largely evaporate of it's own accord.

Think about it.


----------



## osterberg (May 4, 2006)

Well Munkee maybe it's not 'packing meetings' but just that the SWP might have more people in a meeting who agree with them than you have.
You can't get you're own way all the time(by the way round my way we'd be hard pressed to pack out a meeting even if we wanted to).

 Consensus voting in my experience is a process which can allow any single idiot(the aforementioned Wayne) to shout and rant and dominate a meeting without any decision being made because the consensus system allows prats like him a veto.

 To me a democratic meeting means a frank disscusion properly chaired to allow every one to speak not just the one with the loudest voice.And then _everyone_ gets a vote and a decision is arrived at.

 All the best


----------



## munkeeunit (May 4, 2006)

Osterberg, we all know how the SWP function, so it's best you spare us the orwellian double speak. Nobody likes having their intelligence insulted like that. I know many ex-swp who know exactly how the SWP function, and who left because they were sick of the dishonesty and manipulation.

Despite all the abuse and manipulation I'm still always willing to reach out, and include people and groups. I would also prefer it if consensus decision making was made unneccessary by more SWP members waking up to damage they do, and instead behaving as equals amongst allies.


----------



## osterberg (May 4, 2006)

munkeeunit said:
			
		

> Osterberg, we all know how the SWP function, so it's best you spare us the orwellian double speak. Nobody likes having their intelligence insulted like that. I know many ex-swp who know exactly how the SWP function, and who left because they were sick of the dishonesty and manipulation.
> 
> Despite all the abuse and manipulation I'm still always willing to reach out, and include people and groups. I would also prefer it if consensus decision making was made unneccessary by more SWP members waking up to damage they do, and instead behaving as equals amongst allies.



Not fair! I was being as honest as I could be.My last post was what I thought about the consensus thing.I'd never heard of the consensus system till I joined the Cardiff Social Forum.I was only giving my view,not that of the SWP and I sincerely was not insulting your intelligence.

 You need to take off those shit coloured spectacles you look at the SWP with and try to be more balanced.

 As for 'allies' personally I'd work with anyone to get rid of capitalism and make the world a better place.

Regards

Edited to ask : Where in my previous post was there any 'abuse and manipulation'?


----------



## munkeeunit (May 4, 2006)

I'm being perfectly balanced. You have begun be abusive.

Voting abuse and manipulation is the stock in trade of the SWP, I think I've been quite clear about that. 

You have tried to twist it into a personal attack when I am clearly referring to the general tactics of the SWP.

A case in point.

Everyone remains welcome to use the Bristol Social Forum egroup. 

Cardiff events from the SWP are especially welcome, considering you are so close.


----------



## osterberg (May 4, 2006)

munkeeunit said:
			
		

> I'm being perfectly balanced. You have begun be abusive.
> 
> Abuse and manipulation is the stock in trade of the SWP, I think I've been quite clear about that.
> 
> ...



 What personal attack? 
Don't be so touchy.
Good luck with your e-group.


----------



## munkeeunit (May 4, 2006)

Saying I'm wearing 'shit coloured spectacles' can easily be taken as abuse.

I've been perfectly balanced. An earlier post in this thread was highly critical of those who were pleased that the SWP were not present at the Wales Social Forum. That is a highly hypocritcal stance for them to take.


----------



## Col_Buendia (May 4, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> <snip>One of the reasons I stopped going to Cardiff Social forum.With the ridiculous consensus decision making system where voting is banned


This'd be the ridiculous CDM process that, err, the particpants in CSF chose to employ? So does the above comment demonstrate your degree of respect (no pun intended ) for their choice? For as I recall, there was a long and respectful discussion held about the various methods for reaching decisions, and the arguments for CDM won the day, and won it in such a fashion that the opponents of CDM did not feel the need to oppose the decision, even tho they maintained their disagreement. A more perfect illustration of its beauty you could not hope to find.

On the other hand, a more perfect illustration of its flaws is unlikely to be found beyond the memory of the behaviour of the individual you mention. But that moment, if we're talking about the same one, was also complicated by the relative lack of experience of the CSF of acting as a collective. What was missing that day was a collective will to stop the destructive behaviour of one individual in order to permit the full-functioning of the group as a whole. But this problem plagues all collective groupings, not only those who employ CDM as a process, so I think that your blaming of CDM is something of a misnomer.

Anyway, how would you have chosen to deal with him? Proposed a vote to chuck him out? CDM wouldn't prohibit such a decision being taken...


----------



## nwnm (May 4, 2006)

Saying you look at the SWP with shit coloured specs was basically saying that your post was very negative about the SWP in general i.e. We're all a bunch of manipulative bastards who vote rig etc.....

erm anyone who has an idea of how they want things organised and wants to persuade others of the same has to find an effective way of persuading them. We do so in a more organised manner than other groups because we are a Democratic Centralist (Leninist) style group. Anyone who tries to persuade someone else of the 'correct' (in their view) line of march could be accused of being manipulative.

We didn't make the Wales Social forum because, whilst we are one of the largest groups on the left, in the real world this means very little. We are still far too small to do all the things we would like to and we had to prioritise. In the end we decided it was more important to help out with the RESPECT election candidates in England (we helped in Bristol and London) this year, and the mammoth 'Love Music Hate Racism' gig in London (50,000 BTW).

"going north of Brecon gives Trots nosebleeds apparently" Presumably Wales TUC conference isn't in North wales then...... 

Congrats to the organisers of WSF - hope to make the next one. The Programme of events looked excellent.


----------



## munkeeunit (May 4, 2006)

The SWP do vote rig through packing meetings with SWP members in diverse groups where it's assumed common decency will mean people only send representatives to vote. A way around that is to have representative voting, as opposed to an open free for all (which anyone can abuse), as opposed also to CDM. I am very open to working with the SWP. I think that is clear also.


----------



## Col_Buendia (May 4, 2006)

I'm not sure there's much point in getting into a bunfight about this one, it seems to me that for SWP-ers, going to meetings for crucial decisions is a valid form of activism, but for others (myself included), seeing a group of SWP-ers that you've not seen before suddenly appear for a crucial vote seems a bit like packing & hijacking. I doubt there's any common ground between those two interpretations...

I think what might be more interesting to discuss is the failure of the groups that the SWP have taken over to reach out beyond the borders of their own followers. After assuring control of the STW coalition, the swappies seemed to manage to rightly piss off those hotheaded radicals, CND  Why is it that SWP control always ends up alienating everyone else on the left? Indeed, why is it that _control_ is so important in the first place? What about working alongside people...


----------



## munkeeunit (May 4, 2006)

Bristol-Stop-The-War have done very well to square this circle. SWP and Anarchists, and everyone else work together (although often through gritted teeth). The newsletter publicises everyone's events anti-war related, unlike most of the STW network which only publicises those events narrowly approved by 'head office'.

Through inclusion no-one feels left out. Exclusion, which is the contradictory hallmark of the overwhelming majority of the STW *Coalition* network creates hostility, resentment, and a sense that the STW coalition has indeed been hijacked.


----------



## nwnm (May 4, 2006)

"After assuring control of the STW coalition, the swappies seemed to manage to rightly piss off those hotheaded radicals, CND" Wot - you mean those people who jointly organise big anti war demo's ALONGSIDE STWC (and MAB)? Not that pissed off then....


"I doubt there's any common ground between those two interpretations..."
Agree with this - doesn't stop us working together over stuff at times. This thread really shouldn't disolve into a bunfight - there are far more deserving targets for our combined anger then each other


----------



## osterberg (May 4, 2006)

Col_Buendia said:
			
		

> This'd be the ridiculous CDM process that, err, the particpants in CSF chose to employ? So does the above comment demonstrate your degree of respect (no pun intended ) for their choice? For as I recall, there was a long and respectful discussion held about the various methods for reaching decisions, and the arguments for CDM won the day, and won it in such a fashion that the opponents of CDM did not feel the need to oppose the decision, even tho they maintained their disagreement. A more perfect illustration of its beauty you could not hope to find.
> 
> On the other hand, a more perfect illustration of its flaws is unlikely to be found beyond the memory of the behaviour of the individual you mention. But that moment, if we're talking about the same one, was also complicated by the relative lack of experience of the CSF of acting as a collective. What was missing that day was a collective will to stop the destructive behaviour of one individual in order to permit the full-functioning of the group as a whole. But this problem plagues all collective groupings, not only those who employ CDM as a process, so I think that your blaming of CDM is something of a misnomer.
> 
> Anyway, how would you have chosen to deal with him? Proposed a vote to chuck him out? CDM wouldn't prohibit such a decision being taken...



Sorry.
No disrespect intended by my use of the word 'ridiculous'.That's just my opinion from my experience with CDM.
I have no problem with whatever decision making system the CSF use.After all it's none of my business.
 You do need to get rid of that 'individual' for your own sakes however you do it.


----------



## osterberg (May 4, 2006)

munkeeunit said:
			
		

> Saying I'm wearing 'shit coloured spectacles' can easily be taken as abuse.
> 
> I've been perfectly balanced. An earlier post in this thread was highly critical of those who were pleased that the SWP were not present at the Wales Social Forum. That is a highly hypocritcal stance for them to take.



 It was a joke.
Jeez.


----------



## munkeeunit (May 4, 2006)

Well, I know how the SWP function. Ex-SWP members have forwarded me internal email lists from the STW 'head office' out of sheer exasperation at their highly exclusive policies, regarding the refusal to publicise events of others.

This doesn't stop us working together, but it has caused serious disputes both within and outside the SWP. A major reason these disputes have'nt blown the STW network apart is because, yes, there are greater enemies and we know this, and also because Bristol STW, for one, widely publicise those events head office censor, ameliorating the damage routinely done by their exclusive policies.

It's a complex game, and unfortunately it continues to be played.


----------



## nwnm (May 4, 2006)

this stuff is beginning to sound a tad paranoid...... personally I thinks people should either - 

A) get back to talking about the WSF event Good/bad points/speakers etc

B) let this thread die of natural causes........ <not a bin ban though - we need the posts  >


----------



## Col_Buendia (May 4, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> Sorry.
> No disrespect intended by my use of the word 'ridiculous'.That's just my opinion from my experience with CDM.
> I have no problem with whatever decision making system the CSF use.After all it's none of my business.
> You do need to get rid of that 'individual' for your own sakes however you do it.



Fair enough  But the "you" doesn't include me, btw, I no longer participate in the CSF, for all the reasons we've been discussing here - all one of them!


----------



## Socrates (May 4, 2006)

munkeeunit said:
			
		

> Well, I know how the SWP function. Ex-SWP members have forwarded me internal email lists from the STW 'head office' out of sheer exasperation at their highly exclusive policies, regarding the refusal to publicise events of others.



Eh, excuse me, surely the STW like any other organisation is *only under obligation to publicise it's own events*, not act as a general grapevine and bulletin board for everyone else?

Also, publicising other organisations events is problematic, as it leads to arguments over what events to publicise and what not to publicise, what is the criterion for publicising events.  A lot of publicity for lots of other organisations can also mean that STW events get lost in a plethora of adverts.

As it happens, I have seen many events in Aberystwth advertised on STW website, even when they have taken place at the same time as STW events, including the SFC


----------



## Socrates (May 4, 2006)

Col_Buendia said:
			
		

> I was told by a witness that Jill Evans, the MEP, was called a bitch to her face during a public meeting. That sort of behaviour is unacceptable for me, and I'm just glad I wasn't there cos I'd probably have lost my temper with that sort of behaviour.



What was the context? And who was responsible? Was the individual responsible for this behaviour ejected from the event? Was it the mexican wannabe referred to in earlier posts?


----------



## munkeeunit (May 4, 2006)

Socrates said:
			
		

> Eh, excuse me, surely the STW like any other organisation is *only under obligation to publicise it's own events*, not act as a general grapevine and bulletin board for everyone else?
> 
> Also, publicising other organisations events is problematic, as it leads to arguments over what events to publicise and what not to publicise, what is the criterion for publicising events.  A lot of publicity for lots of other organisations can also mean that STW events get lost in a plethora of adverts.
> 
> As it happens, I have seen many events in Aberystwth advertised on STW website, even when they have taken place at the same time as STW events, including the SFC



None of this is a problem for Bristol Stop The War. Coalitions which aim to include should not exclude.

We have a well layed out newsletter which publicise STW events first, then has additional sections for other key notes events around the country. It's not an entirely perfect system, as it never possible to catch everything, but imperfection is a lame and disengenuous excuse to exclude. I'm very well tuned into the STW network, so I know what I'm talking about here.

EDIT: The history of STW 'head office' is that even those within the coalition have been excluded from their publicity.


----------



## munkeeunit (May 4, 2006)

PS: The Bristol STW newsletter has around 3,000 subscribers, most other STW groups around the country are barely ticking over on 200 or less. That should tell you all you need to know about which approach works best.


----------



## neprimerimye (May 4, 2006)

munkeeunit said:
			
		

> The SWP do vote rig through packing meetings with SWP members in diverse groups where it's assumed common decency will mean people only send representatives to vote. A way around that is to have representative voting, as opposed to an open free for all (which anyone can abuse), as opposed also to CDM. I am very open to working with the SWP. I think that is clear also.



The problem I would have with 'representative voting' is that it is predicated on the idea that those voting are representatives. Which if we are talking of delegates from trade union branches or similar is fine but what happens when you have bodies consisting primarily of individuals?

At one STWC meeting I was amused that the annual meeting elected onto the committee a student. Now it seems only logical that there should be a student representative but surely the students should have elected said representative? Quite crazy.

On the upside Wayne did a hissy fit and walked out of that particular meeting. Mind he didn't waste the rest of the veing like those of us who stayed did. Praise Satan I rarely attend the ever shrinking meetings of the far left these days.


----------



## munkeeunit (May 4, 2006)

There definitely is no perfect system, and this is a major hole in representative voting you point to. An approach used is to first go for consensus, and if only one or two people are blocking the consensus to eventually go for a straight vote, but how many hours the debate should drag on for is another issue.

I've known debates to drag on over a number of weeks, but this is not always a bad thing. A flaw of voting is that it can cut short the necessary debate. And some will call for a vote once they sense they can win it, even if further debate may cause opinion to once more change. CDM may be tedious and time consuming, but it does also often result in a more rounded appreciation of everyone's position. It also results in deadlock and endless repetiton of mantras.


----------



## neprimerimye (May 4, 2006)

munkeeunit said:
			
		

> There definitely is no perfect system, and this is a major hole in representative voting you point to. An approach used is to first go for consensus, and if only one or two people are blocking the consensus to eventually go for a straight vote, but how many hours the debate should drag on for is another issue.
> 
> I've known debates to drag on over a number of weeks, but this is not always a bad thing. A flaw of voting is that it can cut short the necessary debate. And some will call for a vote once they sense they can win it, even if further debate may cause opinion to once more change. CDM may be tedious and time consuming, but it does also often result in a more rounded appreciation of everyone's position. It also results in deadlock and endless repetiton of mantras.



To be frank there is no point in coming to a "more rounded appreciation" of the views of say Wayne or the SWP. Nor can I see anything to be gained by listening to the views of employees of NGO's or as I still think of them charidees. After all they only exist to dupe the masses and skim workers of money which is then used to further the agendas of liberal imperialism. For example I note the corrupting influence of NGO's on the LPP.

Lets be honest the organisational forms adopted by various bodies is a class question. If possible socialists should always argue for representative delegate based elections, after fair debate, but in general conditions have rarely been suitable for such forms in the last period given that they are predicated on the affiliation of other pre-existing bodies from whom delegates will be drawn and not on the more or less ad hoc type bodies that have actually come into being.

Until there is a sizeable revival of working class militancy I'm afraid i'm of the opinion that most leftists will remain confined to their circle jerks with others of the same ilk.


----------



## munkeeunit (May 4, 2006)

Yes, I know how you feel, but beyond the parties, ngo's, etc that people are attached too are also people often secretly aching to have an opinion beyond the party line, ngo speel, and so on, they are primarily attached too.

That may sound wishy washy, but getting to know the opinions of people beneath the mantras can be very revealing and productive, but admittedly, this isn't always revealed at meetings where the peer pressure of others in the same party / ngo means that people are often very guarded about going beyond their designated mantras.


----------



## neprimerimye (May 5, 2006)

munkeeunit said:
			
		

> Yes, I know how you feel, but beyond the parties, ngo's, etc that people are attached too are also people often secretly aching to have an opinion beyond the party line, ngo speel, and so on, they are primarily attached too.
> 
> That may sound wishy washy, but getting to know the opinions of people beneath the mantras can be very revealing and productive, but admittedly, this isn't always revealed at meetings where the peer pressure of others in the same party / ngo means that people are often very guarded about going beyond their designated mantras.



No I agree with you from a psychological point of view it is most intresting to observe the machinations involved in small group wadical politics. From a political point of view I rather consider that campaigns such as STWC and the CSF are dominated by a class of people who ae at best reformists without the connection to the labour mvovement that characterised the old school Labourites.

Now while I acknowledge that it is possible for socialist sects such as the SWP, SP, WP et al to recruit from this millieu in general I don't feel that they are worth the effort. The far left is already polluted by such petty bourgeois NGO types.

That many members of the sects would like to break out of the stultifying ossified norms that their leaqders pass of as 'Leninism' I do not doubt for a moment but I suspect that until a sizeable part of the class begins to move that they will conitnue to degenerate, politically speaking, due to the growing influence of the ngo petty bourgeois types they have recruited and who seem to form a considerable section of the leadership of the sects today.


----------



## Col_Buendia (May 5, 2006)

I'm looking forward to the nineteenth century me 

They say it'll be the century of revolutions


----------



## munkeeunit (May 5, 2006)

The 21st century will make the 19th century look like the 18th century. 

No wait they had revolutions then too. Ummm.... the 20th century then, no plenty of revolutions there as well. 

Ok, the 21st century will be like any other recent century. Unheaval and change at a breathtaking pace.


----------



## Col_Buendia (May 5, 2006)

Yes, but do you think Neprimerimye will one day join us in the 21st century, that's my concern


----------



## neprimerimye (May 5, 2006)

munkeeunit said:
			
		

> The 21st century will make the 19th century look like the 18th century.
> 
> No wait they had revolutions then too. Ummm.... the 20th century then, no plenty of revolutions there as well.
> 
> Ok, the 21st century will be like any other recent century. Unheaval and change at a breathtaking pace.



The 21st century will be very like the 20th wars and counter-revolutions. Unless the far left gets its act together and turns its collective back on the ngo liberals.


----------



## neprimerimye (May 5, 2006)

Col_Buendia said:
			
		

> Yes, but do you think Neprimerimye will one day join us in the 21st century, that's my concern



You can keep your 21st century thus far it sucks.


----------



## Col_Buendia (May 5, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> You can keep your 21st century thus far it sucks.



Fuck - we agree


----------



## neprimerimye (May 5, 2006)

Col_Buendia said:
			
		

> Fuck - we agree



I doubt that very much.

In any case I find it deeply hurtful for a liberal to claim that s/he agress with me.


----------



## Col_Buendia (May 5, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> In any case I find it deeply hurtful for a liberal to claim that s/he agress with me.



We agree again!!  I was going to say exactly the same thing to you - liberal


----------



## neprimerimye (May 5, 2006)

Col_Buendia said:
			
		

> We agree again!!  I was going to say exactly the same thing to you - liberal



Oh dearie me now your simply being silly. As a Marxist I am, of course, in the field of politics an authoritarian. In the nicest revolutionary sense of course not personally or in my social views.  

You my friend as an anarchoid of some type are politically indifferent, presuming you hold to the traditional cliches of that ideology, and therefore politically as bankrupt as any other liberal.


----------



## Col_Buendia (May 8, 2006)

Ouch! Now you've really hurt my feelings 

But come come, gentle Neprimerimye, don't try to pull the wool over watching eyes! You know as well as I do that you're a reformist at heart, no revolutionary you. A change of management in an existing structure is a reform - only those who seek to do away with the structure in toto can truly lay claim to the lofty status of "revolutionary".

Authoritarian you no doubt are, but in the nicest, reformist sense of course


----------



## Col_Buendia (May 8, 2006)

_double post_


----------



## neprimerimye (May 8, 2006)

Col_Buendia said:
			
		

> Ouch! Now you've really hurt my feelings
> 
> But come come, gentle Neprimerimye, don't try to pull the wool over watching eyes! You know as well as I do that you're a reformist at heart, no revolutionary you. A change of management in an existing structure is a reform - only those who seek to do away with the structure in toto can truly lay claim to the lofty status of "revolutionary".
> 
> Authoritarian you no doubt are, but in the nicest, reformist sense of course



Threads do tend to wander about but we are now far off topic. So I shall not tarry too long on this latest silliness of yours Col except to remarks that as a Marxist in no sense do I consider that the social revolution can be reduced to a 'change in management'. Rather I hold that the entire mode of production must be swept away root and branch and replaced by a system of production democratically planned according to the needs of the vast majority of society in preparation for that time when even the plan will fall away a unneeded extraction and man begins into the realm of freedom. A transitional period that is which anarchoids reject in favour of sub-reformist utopian phantasies.


----------



## munkeeunit (May 8, 2006)

I broadly agree with this, but do you study the economy, or is this cut n paste?

There's a thread here which everyone has abandoned, left, right and centre because it's got onto the topic of debating the economy in the here and now. Everyone has their soundbites, not matter how long and clunky they may be, but almost everyone seems not to understand the economy beyond them.

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=161357

I'm on/from the revoltionary left, but wouldn't trust them with the economy for a minute, let alone with beginning to replace it root and banch with something else. The skills and expertise simply do not exist on the left. 

Those skills may be their latently already due to everyone already doing the necessary jobs, but there is not a critical mass of people on the left who genuinely comprhend and study the economy, or know how to change it, beyond cut n paste clunky soundbites from some marxist book or other.

I'm not being critical of marxism in general, but I have become deeply sceptical that people who claim to be on the revolutionary left would be able, in any substantive form, to steer an economy away from capitalism. 

That you are saying the left should get it's act together is a promising indication that you do, but most people who make these claims clearly don't once the clunky cut n paste marxist sounbites have been exhausted.

And for people like me who do study the economy, there certainy isn't a critical mass of peers around who are able to analyse in this way, which is often a necessary requirement to get the grey matter of all of us going.


----------



## neprimerimye (May 8, 2006)

munkeeunit said:
			
		

> I broadly agree with this, but do you study the economy, or is this cut n paste?
> 
> There's a thread here which everyone has abandoned, left, right and centre because it's got onto the topic of debating the economy in the here and now. Everyone has their soundbites, not matter how long and clunky they may be, but almost everyone seems not to understand the economy beyond them.
> 
> ...




Do I study the economy? Not quite sure what you mean by that.

But I can say that i do what i can to understand political economy. Including reading the classics of marxism and trying to keep up to date with the more worthwhile Marxist work on the subject.

After all without an understanding of political eonomy Marxism is just another ideology like say anarchism.


----------



## munkeeunit (May 8, 2006)

In order to move from the economy as it is, to another place, an understanding of the economy (root and branch) as it stands is necessary. Marxism tells us a lot about the trajectory of capitalism, but it doesn't tell us how to get from A-B in the here and now.

That's what is most often lacking amongst the left as it stands.


----------



## Col_Buendia (May 8, 2006)

munkeeunit said:
			
		

> I broadly agree with this, but do you study the economy, or is this cut n paste?



 This thread seems to be yielding a higher than average level of comedy genius!


----------



## munkeeunit (May 8, 2006)

Col_Buendia said:
			
		

> This thread seems to be yielding a higher than average level of comedy genius!



Is this the bit where we all try and remember what we said during the 4 hours of lost posts, and do our best to pretend it didn't happen and that we're not in a time loop.


----------



## Col_Buendia (May 9, 2006)

You got it!


----------



## llantwit (May 9, 2006)

munkeeunit said:
			
		

> Is this the bit where we all try and remember what we said during the 4 hours of lost posts, and do our best to pretend it didn't happen and that we're not in a time loop.


I'll sumarise (and paraphrase) for everyone who missed it:

Nep: You are indeed a comedian - you anarchoid liberal scum.
Col:  Every comedian needs a straight-man you authoritarian wanker.
Nep: I am indeed an authoritarian in the strictly political sense, but I'm also a jolly nice chap with a social conscience, and I'm authoritarian for all the right reasons - at least I'm not a wishy-washy liberal like you anarcho fool.
Col: Callin' me a liberal - you're a reformist! Ha! So there! All you want is a change of management at the top of society, you liberal reformist.
Nep: I think you'll find I want a fundamental change in the ownership of the means of production, you anarcho-lickspittle. Bugger off and talk to your greenpeace-scum friends and never trouble me again with your corrupt ideology.
Col: Whatever. Talk to the hand you liberal reformist. By the way - you going to see Black Mountain down the bay on thursday?


This public service broadcast was brought to you by an inattentive reader who happened upon this thread before the boards went down, and remembered the general gist (maybe).


----------



## munkeeunit (May 9, 2006)

That sounds about right. 

The bit where everyone goes down the pub / bay, etc after calling each other lots of political names always makes me laugh.

Reminds of Bristol  

I'm am of, course, the only theorotically pure one here, the rest of you deal merely inbred theories from some dusty book, or NGO pamphlet, or other.


----------



## zog (May 9, 2006)

llantwit said:
			
		

> I'll sumarise (and paraphrase) for everyone who missed it:
> 
> Nep: You are indeed a comedian - you anarchoid liberal scum.
> Col:  Every comedian needs a straight-man you authoritarian wanker.
> ...



What excellent recall you have Llantwit - or are you keeping files?


----------



## Col_Buendia (May 9, 2006)

zog said:
			
		

> What excellent recall you have Llantwit - or are you keeping files?



Exactly!! Llantwit - or David Shayler as we know him at the meets!  Although his synopsis sort of missed out on my rapier-like wit and rhetorical repartee...


----------



## munkeeunit (May 9, 2006)

I can see that post ending up in an MI5 file, along with the other 1 million files on the left they claim to no-longer keep. They only now keep files on people suspected of terrorism, or so they say, which simply means that the 1 million closet lefties they've being keeping tabs on have simply had their files moved to the 'terrorist' filing cabinets next door.


----------



## Col_Buendia (May 9, 2006)

Well I hope they've got a fucking huge file on Llantwit. He killed the Queen Mother in her bed, you know!


----------



## munkeeunit (May 9, 2006)

Which, considring the clumsly and often laughably inaccurate files they do have,  would probably end us as something like 'Llanwit killed his queer mother's bard' which would lead to much head-scratching, but still none of them would have an independent enough brain to question the accuracy of their ridiculous files.


----------



## Col_Buendia (May 9, 2006)

"Wherefore art thou, Llantwit?" came the call from MI5!


----------



## llantwit (May 9, 2006)

Col_Buendia said:
			
		

> Well I hope they've got a fucking huge file on Llantwit. He killed the Queen Mother in her bed, you know!


She did enjoy her last moments, though. Cor, she had stamina that woman. And this james bond lark isn't all it's cracked up to be either! They promised me leggy blonds and I got the gin-soaked granny!


----------



## nwnm (May 10, 2006)

at least she'll burn well then....


----------



## llantwit (May 11, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> at least she'll burn well then....


That's my girlfriend you're talkin' about.


----------



## munkeeunit (May 11, 2006)

I don't know what you're talking about. My MI5 records state only that you killed your 'queer mother's bard', and we have no juristiction over bard murders, and have no records regarding anyone murdering the Queen Mother in her bed. 

In fact our files indicate that the Queen Mother's real name is Svetlana, she's 26, male and living in Iceland and currently working for Saddam Hussein, who is still in power, and president of Norway.

So, we have no intention of ever arresting you, sorry.


----------



## nwnm (May 16, 2006)

"In fact our files indicate that the Queen Mother's real name is Svetlana, she's 26, male and living in Iceland and currently working for Saddam Hussein, who is still in power, and president of Norway." Hmmmm.... have you ever read a book calle 'the aleppo button' by Ellis Sharp. Theres a chapter in there about Stalin faking his death, turning up in a seaside town in England and being elected as a tory MP......


----------



## munkeeunit (May 16, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> have you ever read a book calle 'the aleppo button' by Ellis Sharp. Theres a chapter in there about Stalin faking his death, turning up in a seaside town in England and being elected as a tory MP......



Never read it, but I call him Uncle Joe  (the tory bastard )


----------



## munkeeunit (Jun 2, 2006)

Just a reminder of the Cardiff Social Forum message board.

http://p2.forumforfree.com/csf.html

It's a bit slow at the moment. I tend to redirect people to boards like urban, and indymedia, which are well established and do much the same job, if a lot more loosely.

The Bristol Social Forum is done differently. It's got over 600 subs, and it's more an announcements list, which all subscribers can post to, but it's not encouraged for debate, more announcements. 

Which works very well.

We've also publicised it to all areas which are geographically regional to Bristol, which includes Cardiff, and National Welsh events are also welcome. People in Bristol do like to know what's happening in Cardiff and Wales.

Please subscribe if you want to.

Visit: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bristolsocialforum/
Send a blank email to this address, and then reply to the confirmation message.
bristolsocialforum-subscribe@yahoogroups.com


----------



## llantwit (Jun 2, 2006)

Ah, the memories. The social forum boards that were used to much more lively than this lot - I wasted days of my life on the old boards getting into very long debates with trots.
Will check out the new ones another time.
Ta MU.


----------



## osterberg (Jun 2, 2006)

Munkee's right that the Cardiff Social forum board's a bit slow.
Unfortunately a certain individual has flooded it with tedious cut n' paste of minutes of 'exciting' EU meetings.
  Llantwit needs to get over there and stir up some controversy.


----------



## munkeeunit (Jun 2, 2006)

llantwit said:
			
		

> Ah, the memories. The social forum boards that were used to much more lively than this lot - I wasted days of my life on the old boards getting into very long debates with trots.
> Will check out the new ones another time.
> Ta MU.



I do like arguing with authoritarian trots.
I also like arguing with anarchists who have bizarrely confused anarchism with extreme free market capitalism  
NGO's are more tricky to argue with, because they're politics are very hidden.

I just like arguing.  

We have been encouraging Bristol people to join in the debate on the Cardiff Forum, but we're also aware of the risk that it gets flooded by english, which would be bad, but there's a debate of sorts in the 'website matters' at the moment, where we're askng for a Bristol area on the Wales boards, which I think would keep us nicely contained, while maybe helping to liven things up.


----------



## osterberg (Jun 2, 2006)

I don't think I'd want Bristolians 'safely contained'.
They should post wherever they want on the CSF boards it would liven the boards up a bit .
 God knows they could do with it.


----------



## llantwit (Jun 2, 2006)

> anarchists who have bizarrely confused anarchism with extreme free market capitalism






> Llantwit needs to get over there and stir up some controversy.
> 02-06-2006 08:35 AM


Now you're just shitstirring, Osterberg! 
I know your tactics - wind me up and watch me go.


----------



## osterberg (Jun 2, 2006)

Well nothing else is stirring over there.

 I think munkee is talking about right wing libertarians.Not sure.


----------



## llantwit (Jun 2, 2006)

Sure - it's just I've never encountered one so close to home. Thought they kept to their compounds in the Appalachian mountains, only venturing out to buy ammo and porn.


----------



## osterberg (Jun 2, 2006)

Maybe  munkee's come across some in Brecon.


----------



## munkeeunit (Jun 2, 2006)

I was thinking more the type of anarchist who is very market driven, and conflates community level self-sufficiency, with their own private profit making ventures. The more clunky term being - trustafarian - but that's a little bit dodgy, with an unfortunate racist tone to it (though I know it's not meant that way.)

My preferred, and more cutting name for it is Anarcho-Thatcherite, although they often don't realise that this is very much what they seem to support, in terms of small business economics.

I'm very much in favour of local automony, and widespread community level business ventures, but a lot of anarchists do seem to be fly by nights who are already more than one foot into the door of 'i'm alright jack' style capitalism, which is turned a blind eye to a lot of the time, in the name of holding together the unofficial anarchist 'party'.

It's not anarchism, that's for sure.

I hope that's put a cat amongst pigeons.


----------



## osterberg (Jun 2, 2006)

Like Ben and Jerry or that Body Shop women?
Or are we talking smaller scale?


----------



## llantwit (Jun 2, 2006)

munkeeunit said:
			
		

> It's not anarchism, that's for sure.
> I hope that's put a cat amongst pigeons.


I'm still not sure I know what you mean - the few trustafarians I've encountered (hardly any (if any at all) in Wales - most in London) are dropouts and lifestylists into the squatting scene, and involved with a range of different parts of the movement - none of them own businesses.
I do know some anarchists (who'd probably only loosely self-apply the term) who support and get involved with small-scale community oriented businesses, and even apply for government or local-authority grants to start them up or keep them going. You can debate the rights and wrongs of relying on state money like that - but that's not really what you're getting at, I suspect.

As far as prescribing what anarchism 'is' or 'isn't' goes, I'm not gonna get involved with that - not really my bag.


----------



## llantwit (Jun 2, 2006)

On a different slant - I've heard there's a loose grouping of extreme market fundamentalists in the US who self-apply the term anarchism - but they have nothing to do with the history of class-struggle anarchism, classical anarchism, or the kind of social anarchism that I find interesting. They're just mad fruitloops, I reckon.


----------



## llantwit (Jun 2, 2006)

Gis an example Munkee - you don't have to name names, like.


----------



## munkeeunit (Jun 2, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> Like Ben and Jerry or that Body Shop women?
> Or are we talking smaller scale?



I think sometimes it's more a general attitude, at all levels.

Many anarchists seem to concinve themselves that they're small business venture, where they pay minimum wage, is somehow different to any other small business venture, simply because they otherwise define themselves as anarchist. The profit making business is neatly squared, and reinvented, in their mind as something which it really isn't at all.

There's nothing wrong with trying to set up small businesses, but to pretend that the profit making enterprise, paying minimum wage, is anything other than that individuals slice of the capitalist cake, is intellectually dishonest. It may be preferable to Tesco's, but it's still free market capitalism for personal, not community, gain.

If we added up all the businesses run by anarchists, and declared them as community ventures, we still wouldn't be a microdot closer to an anarchist society than we are at present. It's a form of ideological accounting scam on both a personal level of the small business, up to the corporatism of the Body Shop.


----------



## llantwit (Jun 2, 2006)

munkeeunit said:
			
		

> Many anarchists seem to concinve themselves that they're small business venture, where they pay minimum wage, is somehow different to any other small business venture, simply because they otherwise define themselves as anarchist.


Again - I think this 'many anarchists' stuff could be seen as a bit misleading, munks. It's clear that there must be a few that you know, like... but I know a lot of anarchists, and none of them own a business of any kind as far as I know. Most of them are wage slaves, like. Some don't work at all if they can help it (but are not trusties relying on mum and dad, btw ), some are union activists, some are musicians or artists, some are office fodder, some do manual work, some are in various public services, some work in service industries, and some are academics.
But I'm not sure that what they do to survive is of that much importance to me - as long as they aren't cops, politicians (with very few exceptions), or bosses. We are more than what we do to make a living (although it does matter to an extent, I guess) - and very few of us on the left are lucky enough to have our political views and work lives overlap completely.


----------



## munkeeunit (Jun 2, 2006)

I've known many anarchists over the years, and work with many anarchists on political projects, but I've also known many anarchists to do what I've described above, and call it anarchism. 

autonomist beliefs seem to easily slip into 'i'm alright jack' attitudes, if people don't keep an eye on themselves, from my experience. Champagne Socialists seem to be the lefts other equivalent of this.


----------



## osterberg (Jun 3, 2006)

munkeeunit said:
			
		

> I think sometimes it's more a general attitude, at all levels.
> 
> Many anarchists seem to concinve themselves that they're small business venture, where they pay minimum wage, is somehow different to any other small business venture, simply because they otherwise define themselves as anarchist. The profit making business is neatly squared, and reinvented, in their mind as something which it really isn't at all.
> 
> ...



You're right. It sounds as if your're describing small businesses.These are all subject to the same economic pressures and problems of all small businesses everywhere regardless of how they describe their own personal political outlook.


----------



## llantwit (Jun 5, 2006)

munkeeunit said:
			
		

> I've known many anarchists over the years, and work with many anarchists on political projects, but I've also known many anarchists to do what I've described above, and call it anarchism.


That does indeed sound like a bag of shite - you're right, and it clearly ain't anarchism to talk like a good libertarian talk and then fuck someone over on the minimum wage and p[ass it off as some kind of radical challenge.


> autonomist beliefs seem to easily slip into 'i'm alright jack' attitudes, if people don't keep an eye on themselves, from my experience. Champagne Socialists seem to be the lefts other equivalent of this


This isn't something I've ever experienced - there are a lot of problems with the way that anarchists oganise - the biggest one, in my opinion is the way that informal hierarchies develop in libertarian groups that aren't kept in check, or are ignored, simply because the group calls itself anarchist, and therefore thinks it's somehow 'naturally' done away with the hierarchies already. Things like keeping groups truly equal and non-hierarchical need to be constantly worked on. 
I've never come accross any big bossman anarchist hypocrites of the kind you mntion, though. Lucky me, by the sounds of it.


----------



## munkeeunit (Jun 5, 2006)

llantwit said:
			
		

> That does indeed sound like a bag of shite - you're right, and it clearly ain't anarchism to talk like a good libertarian talk and then fuck someone over on the minimum wage and p[ass it off as some kind of radical challenge.
> 
> This isn't something I've ever experienced - there are a lot of problems with the way that anarchists oganise - the biggest one, in my opinion is the way that informal hierarchies develop in libertarian groups that aren't kept in check, or are ignored, simply because the group calls itself anarchist, and therefore thinks it's somehow 'naturally' done away with the hierarchies already. Things like keeping groups truly equal and non-hierarchical need to be constantly worked on.
> I've never come accross any big bossman anarchist hypocrites of the kind you mntion, though. Lucky me, by the sounds of it.



Anarchism certianly struggles to get over the hurdle of hierarchies. The reality of almost all groups - anarchist or otherwise - is that a handful of individuals will take the 'lead' and get the work done. To some anarchists this is inherently hierarchical, and to be done away with, which can create the impression that anarchists spend more time dismantling their own projects, instead of building them up.

I think it is healthy to try and limit the extent to which hierarchies build up, but in many ways it is unavoidable if jobs are to be done, especially if those complaining abnout hierarachies aren't doing any work themselves. Hierarchies are best dissolved by getting more hands on deck, but anarchism struggles to retain it's 'membership', partly due to the endless meetings about consensus and hierarchy.

I think in the end, and unfortunately, it comes down to personalities. At risk of overinflating my own self, I've found myself in a disturbingly hierarchical position in Bristol (mainly in terms of the decisions I can take in terms of the Bristol STW newsletter, circulation 3,000 odd), a position which I initially sought to occupy because I didn't trust others to occupy that position without abusing it for their own sectarian ends.

The Bristol STW newsletter is inclusive, and in that respect non-hierachical in terms of the output. a hierachical position has been used to break down the hierachy of publicity, and sectarianism, and help give a voice to everyone. At the same time, Bristol STW meetings are run on consensus, so as long as I don't abuse what I'm doing, the meetings don't need to be bogged down in the minutae of what ends up in the newsletter. 

This, for the most part, seems to be a workable compromise between hierarchy and consensus, which many anarchists have also been very supportive of.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jun 5, 2006)

llantwit said:
			
		

> I'll sumarise (and paraphrase) for everyone who missed it:
> 
> Nep: You are indeed a comedian - you anarchoid liberal scum.
> Col:  Every comedian needs a straight-man you authoritarian wanker.
> ...



Been off elsewhere so just catching up here. I did eyeball the Black Mountain Army and mighty they were too. Which is more than can be said for the turnout sadly.

Oh and I would never describe anarchists en masses (sic) as scum. Talked to a pleasant populist-socialist for a while. To be fair he did quite a good job defending his point of view. Once he finds a girl/boyfriend he'll be off unless coopted into the leadership. Too bright I suspect to tarry too long as mere timeserver. Unlike some I could mention.


----------



## llantwit (Jun 5, 2006)

Been anywhere nice Nep?


----------



## Col_Buendia (Jun 5, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> Too bright I suspect to tarry too long as mere timeserver. Unlike some I could mention.



*Wilma!!!!*


----------



## neprimerimye (Jun 6, 2006)

llantwit said:
			
		

> Been anywhere nice Nep?



I went to Barry Island once....


----------



## llantwit (Jun 6, 2006)

Come on Nep - you can do it if you really try. Meaningless friendly conversation might seem like a waste of time but it does fulfill some functions:
It allows you to interact with fellow human beings, it allows you share a smile with others and connect for a fleeting moment.
It might not be historical materialism and it won't change the world - but it sometimes adds up to making the world a slightly more cheery place. 

OK - so here's my line of thinking - you said:



> ... Been off elsewhere ...



It being summer, and my mind working like the avaerage hairdresser, I surmised you must have 'been away on holidays'... hence my question:



> Been anywhere nice?



To which you usually tell me where you've been or put me right if my suggestion was erroneous.


----------



## llantwit (Jun 6, 2006)

And Barry Island isn't nice.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jun 6, 2006)

llantwit said:
			
		

> And Barry Island isn't nice.



It's horrid and terribly common.


----------



## llantwit (Jun 6, 2006)

Quite.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jun 6, 2006)

llantwit said:
			
		

> Quite.



However my dog enjoys it off season.


----------



## Col_Buendia (Jun 6, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> However my dog enjoys it off season.



I hope you don't let him shit on the beach!


----------



## llantwit (Jun 6, 2006)

That's compulsory. And not just the dogs.
My parents wouldn't let me leave Barry Island without crapping on the beach. It's what the working classes do. Animals. I'm glad I ain't one any more. Woof.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jun 6, 2006)

Col_Buendia said:
			
		

> I hope you don't let him shit on the beach!



Considering the nature of the average Barryite it might seem ostentatious but I always pick up after the dog.

Oh and the dog is female.


----------

