A Word In Your Ear

Free Trade Unions..? Don't Make Me Laugh! - vol 4, Issue 8, September/October '00

Mandy Plays Hard Ball - vol 4, Issue 6, April/May '00

What Goes Around... - vol 4, Issue 5, Feb/March '00

First They Came For The Communists - vol 4, Issue 4, Dec '99/Jan '00

New Leader : New Danger - vol 4, Issue 3, Oct/Nov '99

The Accused - vol 4, Issue 2, Aug/Sept '99

Free Trade Unions..? Don't Make Me Laugh!

The “red” wedding of the year took place recently in the unlikely surroundings of a Catholic Church in Glasgow. That fist-clenching ‘fighter for socialism’ Tommy Sheridan bit the bullet, along with his principles, and married his trophy wife, Gail, an air stewardess. As can be seen from the picture of the “handsome couple”, it was a jolly affair, with Tommy sporting the MacLean tartan which he picked in honour of one of his recently acquired revolutionary ‘heroes’, the Scottish socialist republican, John MacLean.

More curious than the ceremony itself is the honeymoon destination picked by this “man of principle”. Cuba. Then again, Tommy and his Scottish Socialist Party colleagues believe that Cuba is a model of ‘socialist’ democracy that the people of Scotland should look to for inspiration.

This isn’t an uninformed personal attack upon Sheridan either, because he is on record and in print as identifying Cuba as his prime example of ‘socialism’. Indeed, while honeymooning in this “socialist” utopia, he even managed to devote his weekly Daily Record column (circulation 1.2 million) to a propaganda piece on behalf of the Cuban regime. Describing it as an. “Island where socialism is at its best,” this is the Sheridan vision of what a “socialist” Scotland might look like.

Tommy’s dispatch from Cuba was awash with references to his meeting with two Cuban government officials, as well as some quite hypocritical references to the genuinely revolutionary figure of Che Guevara, who himself fell foul of the regime, and was politically isolated by the very people who still run Cuba today. Instead of promoting the revolutionary legacy of Che, Tommy Sheridan’s article was actually promoting the current leadership in Cuba who are light years removed from the politics and actions of Guevara, despite the murals of him that adorn many buildings, including the tourist hotels.

Tommy reminds us in the same newspaper column that the Cubans are ‘justifiably proud’ of the advances that they have made in education and health care since the revolution and he rails against the US led economic embargo of the island. A member of the Cuban National Assembly tells Tommy that ‘socialism’ has indeed provided plenty for his people: “I guarantee that every Cuban eats every day. Not as much as I would like, but every day, three times a day... Every Cuban has free health care cover, from the cradle to the grave. Every Cuban is educated free... Can you say the same for your country, or Europe, or America?”

The 1.7 million visitors to Cuba last year are hailed as virtual revolutionary heroes because consciously or unconsciously, they broke the US embargo to bring much needed foreign currency to the country. Sheridan recommends that his fellow Scots should do likewise and take a holiday to this ‘socialist’ fantasy island. The Cuban government must have been very appreciative of Tommy’s efforts on behalf of their burgeoning tourist industry.

No mention of Gary Glitter or the fact that Cuba, along with Thailand and the Philippines is now regarded as one of the prime “sex tourist” economics of the Third World. No mention either of the lack of free trade unions, political parties, free elections, or the repression by the regime of minorities such as gays.

The latter a somewhat strange omission from the leader of a party that saw itself as the champion of gay rights during the recent debate on the proposed repeal of Section 28 in Scotland. But the SSP’s flirtation with the Cuban regime is not only confined to their leader.

At their national conference earlier this year, it was the mother of the bridegroom who proposed a motion of support for “socialist” Cuba. Coincidentally, a representative of the Cuban Government happened to be present when she did so. Besides condemning the US blockade against Cuba, the motion referred to the country as “socialist” and saluted its “tremendous social advances” If this were not questionable enough, comrade Sheridan - substituting for her son - defended the lack of trade union and other freedoms in Cuba on the basis of their claimed absence in Britain.

Ma Sheridan then cut loose: “Perhaps the Cuban people don’t want pluralism! Perhaps they don’t want free trade unions” she chuntered.

Evidently appaled, a Weekly Worker reporter commented: “The wording of the motion and the enthu­siasm of comrade Sheridan, certainly had me wondering whether or not the SSP leadership, or key sections of it, had entered into some secret diplomatic internationalist pact with the Cuban government.” As this “truly awful speech” was straight out of the mother of the horse’s mouth, it is certainly one explanation. Another is that “socialism” and, presumably, “socialists” know exactly what is good for the working class, even if they are sometimes too stupid to understand the benefits of ‘socialism’ for themselves. As Tommy himself boldly puts its:

“Cuba remains a burning flame of inspiration to socialists around the world.”

How much would - or did - the Cuban government have to pay for propaganda like this? Certainly more than the cost of a free honeymoon, I’d guess.

Reproduced from RA Volume 4, Issue 8, September/October '00

Mandy Plays Hard Ball

UNDERSTANDABLY given the unique stance adopted by Red Action at the outset of the initial cease-fire in 1994, there was much head scratching at an editorial level, (as no doubt there was in Army Council circles) in an effort to figure out what precisely Mandelson thought he was doing when he unilaterally undermined the Good Friday Agreement (GFA) apparently on a whim? Was he authentically Machiavellian, or simply off his chump? Was it an arbitrary decision or part of some wider Brit cunning? Was he his own man, or a somewhat exotic creature of the securocracy? Dangerously shrewd or dangerously simple?

As a career move playing ‘hard ball’ with the IRA is hardly to be recommended. So on what basis did he, Peter Mandelson, even imagine he would get them to cry uncle? These are afterall the same men who tried to blow up the British Cabinet and assassinate the Prime Minster, not once, but twice since Labour had last been in office. Sinn Fein chief negotiator Martin McGuinness was himself, it is reputed, (have to be careful of the libel laws here: see LM. Ed) to have even been IRA Chief of Staff when the Grand Hotel extravaganza was sanctioned in l984. “Rising up through the ranks of the IRA in the face of the military onslaught of the British State is” as the author Kevin Toolis observed “a wholly different political contest from charming a few old trade unionists at your selection committee.” Charming is of course how Mandelson likes to think of himself, but he will have few genuine admirers within the trade unions. Trade unions are anathema to a man who once famously asked for ‘glacoumola’ (sorry, not entirely sure what it is actually) instead of mushy peas, in some chippy up north.

In point of fact Mandy built his C.V. through opposing union influence within the Labour Party. Is it even faintly realistic, given his apparent success then, it could have formed the basis for his stratagem to outflank the Republican Movement now? To think so would of course imply an almost incredible shallowness on his part would it not? Shallow or not, steadiness under fire so to speak is not in any case a characteristic. Shortly after arriving in ‘the Province’ he was confronted by a baying Loyalist mob, who made among other things their tacit endorsement of ‘The Save Ulster from Sodomy’ campaign fairly plain. “Mandelson looked absolutely terrified,” commented one reporter. On another occasion, when braving a picket from the other end of the political spectrum, and though this time not even baying, caused nonetheless further quivers in the upper lip. Even when safely inside the hall, Mandy still ‘fidgeted nervously’ as an unseemly scrum developed at the door between those who Republican News referred to neutrally as ‘RUC mutton heads’ and four SF councillors seemingly intent on gate-crashing.

What follows is a verbatim account of events inside: “Who are those people?” Mandy asked. “Sinn Fein councillors who want to come in,” he was told. “Why?” Mandy asked. Because they’re local reps and they’ve been invited. Mandy, decidedly not at home with this, asked: “Are they going to be rowdy? Do they want to protest?” Perhaps I’ll ask them offered a local community figure. “Do you trust them?” Mandy asked apprehensively. All right so maybe he’s not exactly officer material, you wouldn’t want him at Roark’s Drift, or rush to put a fiver on him in a ‘straightener’ with Gerry Kelly say, but none of that in itself proves him intellectually vacuous. Or does it? On February 20 The Sunday Telegraph, arch opponent of the GFA, but just as confused by the turn in events as the rest of us, opted for a little detective work on the man behind the ‘Prince of Darkness’ legend. Oddly, Mandy is rarely quoted. But any suspicions that his understanding of the subtleties might have been fatally ‘overrated’ were batted away by ‘friends’. Explaining a particularly undiplomatic row with SF negotiators, who publicly accused Mandelson of having come over all colonial, of being ‘arrogant and patronising’, the friend remarked: “he [Mandy] KNEW they would do something like that”, stressing that “anyone versed in Labour politics can see miles ahead, and take it in his stride.”

Returning to the damning analogy a little later he offered: “This whole crisis has been littered by crises followed by successes, the idea of three steps forward two steps back is not that different to modernising Labour during the last 15 years.” ‘Not that different’! Too jaw-droppingly unbelievable maybe. But then as Sherlock Homes oft repeated: “when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” And however improbable it might still appear, if Mandy, in addition to being all round a bit of a big girls blouse, is also just short of being ‘dolly dimple’ strategically, the wider implications for the party he helped shape in his own image speak eloquently for themselves. Who after all would take seriously the advice of someone, who, as must now be suspected actually coined the nickname ‘Prince of Darkness’ - for himself!

Reproduced from RA Volume 4, Issue 6, April/May '00

What Goes Around...

“SINN FEIN will be happy to administer British rule in Ireland for the foreseeable future”. It was this quote, SF Ard Comhairle member Francie Molloy was confronted with at a Troops Out rally in Birmingham toward the end of last year. Being an informal column, his accuser who we will refer to by his Christian name, Rory (his real name), often sports both an Arran jumper and a PLO type scarf, (you know the type) is a ‘dissident’ convert. And so wise to counter-revolutionary wiles, and in anticipation of some blustery denial, he took care to name the paper concerned. As luck would have it, it was in fact Molloy himself who had been so quoted. He admitted the quote was entirely accurate, except that is for the small omission of the word “not”. The Sunday Times is an arch opponent of the peace process, while Liam Clarke, is, ‘as all republicans know’ an ‘M15 operative’ he offered in explanation.

On 9 January, from the same political stable “IRA to begin disarmament ‘within weeks’” was a Sunday Telegraph headline. IRA weapons were to be put “Out of use” it proclaimed. “Put beyond use” is how Suzanne Breen in her column in Fortnight magazine put it. In a “secret deal” she announces weapons will simply be “put beyond use”, and as a result, “grassroots Provos will” she promises “defect over decom­missioning”. On every front the ‘Provos’ were in deep doodo: disaster generally ‘for the fastest growing party in Ireland’ beckons, she reckons.

Though Sinn Fein, favourites to take over from the SDLP as the largest nationalist party, “can secure the votes of those previously turned off by the armed campaign it will” she prophesies, “eventually struggle to retain militant working class and rural republican support”. Even worse “the dissidents although still smaller that the Provos are expanding”. As proof she cites “political meetings” which “are now attended by representatives from Irish groups in the USA and” - and of course - “Britain”. With the support of woolly jumpers everywhere that dissidents guns remained silent was she concedes something of “a surprise”. Probably just “waiting until it is capable of launching a sustained campaign” Suzanne reassures. And despite its continuing “verbal commitment, Sinn Fein has - like Fianna Fail in the 1930’s - effectively abandoned traditional republicanism”. Therefore she opinions airily “it’s only a matter of time before it drops abstentionism from Westminster”.

And just as Fortnight the ‘mouthpiece of BT9’, struggles to hold on to the centre, Republican Sinn Fein are just as ardently fighting to hold on to the past. Hence their insistence that Adams and McGuinness, who are ‘already halfway towards accepting seats in the British Parliament should forthwith cease using the name Sinn Fein’. Generally all concerned would prefer ‘real republicanism’ to be served by someone other than ‘the fastest growing party in Ireland’. RSF, who calculate their membership in dozens would be ideal. Rory for one, for whom a round dozen would normally imply a tripling in membership, would be immediately reassured. For in his eyes absolute failure is the only authentic hallmark of absolute integrity.

When, within a couple of months of its launch in April 1995, the London branch of the Irish political prisoners organisation, Saoirse, had in support and propa­ganda terms effortlessly outstripped, not to say seriously embarrassed senior support groups of over twenty years standing, his suspicions based on that criteria were ripe for arousal. And once the whispering, that Saoirse had been ‘infiltrated’ with the express intention ‘to place the prisoners issue at the very top of the peace process agenda, the better to embarrass the leadership when the Brits failed to deliver’ began, it found welcoming ears. The necessary over­night transformation of the ‘infiltrators’ from ‘pro-IRA and pro-peace’, to ‘pro-IRA but anti-peace’, ‘to anti-peace and pro-M15’ was equally compelling. To bring things to a head it merely required a fellow ‘woolly jumper’ Rod, (again his real name) to give substance to the baloney by airing the smear publicly. Were certain factions inadvertently or otherwise, “working to an M15 agenda” he dutifully inquired?

Within a matter of days, The Irish World quoted a source (unnamed) who confirmed ‘IRA concern’ with being publicly associated with any group that was “open to [Ml 5] infiltration”. By the weekend the hounds had the scent, when an article in The Sunday Times (no, not Liam in case you are wondering) thought it ‘entirely reasonable’ for SF to re-establish a clear line of command “unimpeded by outside groupings”. This was swiftly followed by an article in The Irish Times by someone named Suzanne (one and the same), insisting Sinn Fein “had long been unhappy with the group’s militant [for ‘militant’ read ‘dissi­dent’] activities”. It finally fell to The Irish Post to pin the tail on the donkey. As it explained, the London group had “lost direction” after being “infiltrated by extremists such as Red Action that sought to under­mine Sinn Fein’s peace strategy”. Though in no rush to identify the other “extremists, it sounded, on the face of it, you must admit, plausible.

A certain Ard Comhairle member duly ‘bought the pup’ and the most dynamic ‘mainland’ campaign (Bishopsgate, etc. apart) for over twenty years was wound up with immediate effect. As tends to be the way of things, the central allegation was needless to say entirely accurate, apart from the omission, of the word “not”. But what goes around comes around. No surprise (and with it some unattractive smugness) when the elements privately whispering “M15” in an Ard Comhairle ear then, are in turn quoting M15 and publicly bellowing “Sellout!” in it now.

Reproduced from RA Volume 4, Issue 5, Feb/March '00

First They Came For The Communists...

“Lenin left us a great legacy and we, his heirs, have fucked it up!” was Stalin’s comment in 1941 on being told of Hitler’s invasion of Russia. In a review of a new book, The Road to Terror - Stalin and the self destruction of the Bolsheviks, it is remarked in passing, that in contrast to the Nazis “the terror campaign [in Russia] was not very orderly. In Germany the victims were announced in advance: Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, Socialists and the mentally ill:’ (London Evening Standard 8.11.99) Now, unless they are listed under “mentally ill” Communists, you notice, don’t get a mention. The latest airbrushing follows swiftly on the heels of another new book, Fascism: Theory and Practice by SWP theoretician Dave Renton, who was taken to task in the pages of Red Action for a similar economy. Renton, had deliberately listed “liberals and feminists” first and second in order of merit in the ‘hierarchy of the oppressed’ in order, it was alleged to falsely convey the impres­sion that a) these groups were first to be targeted and b) were singled out precisely because they were front line anti-fascist fighters... Communists were, needless to say, not even placed. A common enough assumption perhaps, but the disquieting thing is the people, writing and reviewing, know different. When you consider that in the German Weimar Republic, Communist was synonymous with manual working class and we, their heirs, are being similarly ‘fucked up’, (See editorial on Searchlight) is it any wonder we’re a bit ‘chippy’!

Variously described as “essential reading”, “the highest rank of scholarship”, “the standard work superseding all others” and most tellingly for our purposes, acclaimed principally for it’s “intellectual honesty”, Hitler, by renowned historian Ian Kershaw, a scrupulously detailed 880 pages, came out only last year.

In it Kershaw explains that while for the Nazis the Jews were the ‘racial enemy’, it was the Communists, the ‘chief object of hostility’, who provided both the physical and ideological opposition. And there was plenty of it. During July 1932 alone, 86 mainly Communists and Nazis died in politically motivated street fighting. Hundreds were seriously injured. On one Sunday after­noon, seventeen Nazis were killed and sixty four (mostly Nazi) were seriously injured, when the ‘Brownshirts’ tried to march through the tough dock area of Hamburg Altona. Consequently when Hitler came to power it was as Kershaw emphases, “Communists” not Jews “who were the main targets”. It was the Communists, not liberals, who “were particularly savagely repressed. Individuals were brutally beaten, tortured, seriously wounded or killed with total impunity”.

“Around 10,000 Communists and Socialists were arrested in March and April alone. By June, the numbers in protective custody, most of them workers, (not many of them feminists presumably) had doubled?’ (our emphasis).

When “Dachau the first concentration camp was opened” it was purpose built, Himmler announced at a press conference “to hold” - wait for it - “Communists and if necessary Reichsbanner [SDP paramilitaries] and Social Democratic functionaries”. The Socialist SDP only “if necessary” note. Coincidentally, the Guardian recently reprinted a report from Dachau concentration camp from January 1, 1934, as part of their Century supplements. It makes for interesting reading, “the number of prisoners is 2,200 - 2,400. Of these about fifty are intellectuals, a few are members of the middle class, without any political affilia­tions, fifty or sixty are Nazis, about sixty are Jews, about five hundred are Socialists, two are army officers, there are several beggars and ordinary criminals, fifteen are non-German subjects and the remainder are Communists. The overwhelming majority belong to the working class”. (our emphasis)

There’s a lot more, but you get the picture. Working class communists were not just part of the fight against Adolf. To all intents and purposes they were the anti-fascist resistance.

Ah yes, you can here the liberal shriek, that’s all very well: ‘But the communists fought the Nazis with similarly violently methods, toward similar totalitarian ends, which for us disqualifies them as anti-fascists!’ From this logic Hitler can, and should, be morally held to account, for persecuting the innocent only, those who did not get involved, the mentally ill, homosexuals, Gypsies, trade unionists, Jews... not forget­ting the feminists and liberals.., those not tainted by violence.., the ones who stood idly by and did nothing! The revisionists in other words identify exclusively with those who did not fight fascism! In Russia in much the same period, priorities are reversed. Unless they are Communists, it is now dissi­dents, the more militant the better, who are applauded. Imagine any other minority being unlucky enough to find themselves the ‘chief object of hostility’, for the two bloodiest tyrants (Joe, like Adolph, began his purges within the Communist Party) in this the 20th, and bloodiest century, and this coincidence not rating a mention? A mere oversight or more to do with ‘the victors always being the ones who write history’. Instructive to observe, is it not, on what side of the wire, so to speak, liberalism stands? On the basis that those who ‘rewrite the past are condemned to repeat it’, is to my mind no reason why in the meantime, if the opportunity arises, they still shouldn’t get a slap.

Reproduced from RA Vol 4, Issue 4, Dec '99/Jan '00

New Leader : New Danger

Nick Griffin beats John Tyndall in BNP leadership contest.

The BNP have a new leader. Following a postal ballot of all members Nick Griffin secured 62 % of the vote thereby replacing John Tyndall at the head of the BNP.
This will come as something of a shock to the uninformed, (or to readers of Searchlight who are mostly misinformed) for while Griffin was correctly fingered as coveting Tyndall's title he was according to Searchlight' spin, in competition with Tony Lecomber for it. In fact Lecomber was Griffin's election agent! That Lecomber himself did not stand gives a key insight into the thinking of the 'modernisers'. Jailed for an attempted bombing in the early '80s and then again for a further three years for a violent assault in the early '90s, Lecomber was often at the forefront of clashes with AFA .
Of all possible leadership contenders, Lecomber has by some distance the most distinguished 'war record'. Nothing if not game, he ended up on the deck so often he was christened "Tarmac" by AFA militants. That apart, it was him rather than Griffin surprisingly, who first promoted Euro-Nationalism as the strategy of the future. Significantly as well, it was Lecomber rather than Tyndall who announced to the press in 1994 that 'the battle to control the streets was over and there would be no more meetings, marches, punch-ups'. All in all, Lecomber appeared to have the perfect pedigree; just the right amount of stamina, vision and thuggery required to replace Tyndall. Though unlike Tyndall he was never captured in full Nazi regalia, in all other respects Lecomber more than met the criteria of a brown-shirt of the old school. Rather too well for the modernisers liking however. Even Griffin, who has only a single 'white collar' conviction under the Race Relations Act (of which he is rather 'proud'), allows that if the links with Gadaffi or other 'youthful indiscretions', prove a handicap, the 'job of fronting our public image would be allotted to someone who presents even less of a target to the media'.
So 'media image' is an obvious reason for the modernisers to jettison a pronounced Mosleyite like Tyndall. Getting rid of Tyndall would also allow a clearing of deadwood such as Keith Axon, whose only talent is his loyalty to Tyndall. Griffin promises to replace them with 'under-used talented supporters' possibly including Eddy Butler, the architect of the Isle of Dogs victory in 1993. Butler along with others left the BNP not long after in disgust at Tyndall, who fearing he would be 'out-Nazied by Cl8', flatly refused to face down C18 politically. It is for such reasons that the majority came to accept Lecomber's view that the steady rise of the BNP was down to people 'other' than Tyndall.
Without doubt it was Tyndall's bizarre attempt in January 1996 to make a 'return to the streets' which sealed his fate. Only a humiliating climb down forestalled an instant leadership challenge then. This fatal blunder was a result of 'not knowing the situation on the ground'; not fully appreciating the "stiff opposition" to use Lecombers words that the BNP had faced from RA/AFA in the late 1980's and early 1990's. The only explanation for his ignorance is that fearful of his political reaction (ie a further lurch toward C18) if the graphic details were not kept from him, he was instead misled as a matter of routine.
Which helps explain why, though only a little younger, press officer Michael Newland dismisses Tyndall's political thinking as outdated and borne of "a wartime mindset" ie. "the assumption that the prospect of being attacked would stiffen the sinews of our sturdy British folk. In reality most run a mile." For Griffin, while citing an incident at Stockport British Rail station in 1986 where the NF did not "run" as his "proudest moment" (though being completely over run by a formidable outfit from Manchester was only prevented with the help of a fireman's axe!) Stockport was still for him the exception that proved the rule. Before the year was out, following yet another NF debacle in Bury St Edmonds at the hands of London AFA, Griffin foresaw what Tyndall would still be struggling with a decade later, ie. "the temptation to hold exciting but basically futile street activities... [to] very little effect, save to allow Red Action to use the NF threat to boost their own support on the streets. Now that he's in charge 'avoid the streets - avoid Red Action' will continue to be his motto.
Particularly, as at present, a mere doubling of the 20% turnout in the Euro Election in June 1999, (when the BNP still took over 100,000 votes) would leave them within shouting distance of the 250,000 votes accrued by the NF in its heyday in 1977. And with Griffin as front man (of a collective leadership) the BNP have completed the make over from 'Hollywood Nazi' to European Nationalist in little over five years. To even keep pace the conservative Left are going have to suffer the trauma of a similar transition. Up to know there is absolutely nothing to suggest they have either the ambition or the stomach for it. Accordingly, just as the Far-Right give the appearance of leaving the wilderness, the conservative Left seem destined to replace them there.

Reproduced from RA Vol 4, Issue 3, Oct/Nov '99

The Accused

FIRST THE FACTS. On May 1 a benefit for a Czech anti-fascist, at the time on remand for shooting a fascist in self defence, was arranged by the North London Solidarity Federation and an AFA speaker surprisingly invited.

On duly turning up at 9pm she was confronted with an individual in the company of the organisers, who had recently been expelled by AFA for taking a personal grievance to the 'federalies '.As a result a charge of ABH had been proffered against a personal friend of some of the other AFA members present, who had turned up with her (it was to have been her maiden speech, aaah...) in good faith to support the event. Not only had some of these same AFA members been forced to personally given evidence on behalf of the defence in the subsequent trial but the (extremely minor incident) that led to the charges had been caused by the personal insecurities of the complainant himself.

Though eventually acquitted the defendant who is of frail mental health and certainly no 'street-fighter ' faced the distinct possibility for eleven months, of not only going to jail on a trumped up charge, but as his family feared of 'never coming out again '. Twice over the last few years he was sectioned under the Mental Health Act so such an unwarranted tragedy was more than probable . A reality which despite repeated representations to these fine revolutionaries, one of whom incidentally is a trained social worker (you know the people who steal your kids) the Solidarity Federation as whole managed to regard the affair with stoic indifference.

So on the evening in question, following a very brief consultation the AFA speaker was withdrawn, and shortly afterward the chief witness for the prosecution also left the pub under some duress it must be admitted. Now any social group must have some moral code. It couldn't function without some form of sanction. Even Rotarians must I am sure detest a grass. Neither is ignorance any excuse. Even from programmes like The Bill it is made abundantly clear that in working class culture only a 'nonce ' is regarded as lower in the food chain. An abhorrence of violence at the same fund-raiser for someone accused of murder, albeit in self defence (although he did shoot him more than once apparently), sits a little strangely with middle class indignation at witnessing what is afterall a perfect example of 'proletarian ' justice taking it 's natural course you would have thought? But in eyes of North and East London Solidarity Federation being a grass, and a lying one at that, is clearly socially acceptable while giving the same a couple of slaps, (which is all it amounted to incidentally), is it appears deserving of international condemnation no less. As twisted priorities go, a more luminous example is hardly imaginable. (And as an illustration of where the Left generally has gone wrong, further comment is is I sincerely hope entirely superfluous).

Furthermore, within days of the initial incident, one of their organisers evidently in a bad case of funk made a cap in hand approach (actually the message was by phone but you get the drift) to AFA through an intermediary indicating that they 'didn 't want any trouble blah blah ' and insisted that they intended to write to AFA with a view to making good what he acknowledged was 'a diplomatic blunder '. However no letter arrived. Instead of a grovelling apology, some half wit came up with the type of scheme even Baldrick might have knocked back with a derisive "Bollocks!"

'Why not kill two birds with one stone ', the twerp suggested 'and explain away the financial embarrassment ( the AFA contingent bringing, temporarily, the crowd to over double figures) down to drunken intimidation by Red Action thugs instead? ' And so they did. And decided to take collective responsibility for it. After all nothing like spinning an enjoyable smear against a detested enemy to raise morale. Just so long as the golden rules are scrupulously observed: a) make sure Red Action don 't hear about it b) make sure the source of the rumour is concealed, and c) leave plenty scope to pin the blame on somebody else, ie. never sign, or put anything in writing) In this case all three were well and truly flouted.

When made aware that the moggy was well and truly out of the valise, (rumours of the 'Red Action rampage ' had been picked up within only a matter of days incidentally, first in Hackney housing benefit section if you must know? then Birmingham, Manchester and later amongst the Irish Republican diaspora), a letter dated June 28 duly arrived on London AFA 's desk a full ten weeks after the event delivering the results 'of their inquiry '. Bad enough LAFA, like the cuckold husband, was the last to know, for it had already had been widely broadcast within anarchist circles, formally and by word of mouth, but not satisfied, they also declared their firm (I use the word loosely) intention to give the 'scandal' full international exposure.

Meanwhile for good measure a senior member of RA was threatened that 'the nature of AFA 's reply would determine what further action might be taken '. Oh dear.

Reproduced from RA Vol 4, Issue 2, Aug/Sept '99