The latest changes in the SWP's election line up

by ah go on. Fri May 14, 2004 20:22

has done it again.
he's just gone out you know
with like his tribe
and walked around the island.

well not the island this time,
but he's just walked his people round the city.

fair play to him.

ok so he's not the same
as he used to be.
and lots of mistakes probably have been made by everyone.
but like come on
sex good music
cigars carribean sunshine
and Fidel.

a recipe for something
in even a SWP
famously brainwashed head.

You TROTS!
oh no you're not trots.
are you trots?

have a look:-
http://foro.losgenoveses.net/viewtopic.php?t=600
this is a link to Mr Pique's site, the man who's in the pay of the CIA to arm the maulets of catalanland in their war against the Basque, over which ear the beret should slant/lean.
C/F Jonathan Swift.
another one of us.

http://www.clarin.com/diario/2004/05/14/um/m-759407.htm

These internet pages might be in Spanish.
This is ok. As long as revolutionary ideas and rhetoric stay in obsecure tongues, you have no need to worry about your pension fund, your convertible or condo. If you see mention of spanish speaking countries for more than four minutes without YOUR PRESIDENT you ought consult your broker.


BONUS EXTRA!
http://www.plume-noire.com/music/live/buenavista.html
if you're boycotting canada don't go.

by Henry Fri May 14, 2004 20:30

First we had the Clonakilty Pudding aka Dave Lordan now we have Captain 'Saturday Night' Wingnut!!

Keep is coming!! These elections will be gas!

by Paul Benedict - DGN Fri May 14, 2004 20:37 Clontarf

This is good satirical humour, I hope the editors have a sense of humour and don't delete it for not really being a 100% news story.

by Dub swp - SWP Sat May 15, 2004 00:51 Dublin

"this is really good satirical humour" ahh really, and theres me thinking its just the same load of sectarian bolloxs that you indy heads love....another chance for the various rest of the left to unite in the one cause that they agree on; hatred of SWP.
Hopefully loads of comments will follow from courageous anonymous heads about evil leninist and fronts,and police agents and ............................
You must have thought that "stuck on you" was the hight of satirical humour too!!
SWP watcher....what are you going to be when you grow up? A bigger wanker?

by tom smith Sat May 15, 2004 01:22

then to trying to gain humour from the swps electoral campaign?

by Lenny Henry Sat May 15, 2004 15:12

Can anyone in the SWP see that the constant withdrawals and changes of wards for the SWP is a source of amusment for the left?

It is a reflection of the fact that you are yet again going into elections without a serious attitude.

Hammerings await for all SWP candidates, I find it very funny that ye never learn the lessons of failing dismally in elections for the past 10 years

by indygirl Sat May 15, 2004 15:37

I have just checked SWP website and it says that Captain Wingless is standing in Ballymun and Whitehall, where does the info about him standing in the North Inner City come from?

by Duntknow Sat May 15, 2004 17:13

I don't know where SWatcher gets his/her information but he/she did previously make correct predictions about the SWP's candidacies before the SWP made a change to their website.

One prediction was the disappearance of Christy "not that one" Moore from the SWP's candidate list. Another was the appearance of Dave "Clonakilty Pudding" Lordan as a candidate.

So I don't know where the information is coming from but SWatcher does seem to have an inside line. I will keep an eye out for changes in status for Commander "Saturday Night" Wingnut.

by Sane Person Sat May 15, 2004 21:30

Wingfield is not and never was standing in North Inner City. He's is and was running in Ballymun.
Whoever posted otherwise is lying and you clots were happy to be taken in. So no change there then.
Grow up!

by dave lordan - swp Sun May 16, 2004 15:11

don't mind being called the pudding atall. I love black pudding and white. (Cue raging vegetarian autonomist calling for my execution) Satire is great and should be encouraged. People should read Mark Steel in the english independent on thursdays to see how us swimmers do it.
I guess i am called the Clonakilty pudding because of a little pamphlet of poems i printed to raise money to go to the ESF in Florence a couple of years ago. The pamphlet was in fact called Cloinakilty Red Pudding. From certain angles i amy also resemble a pudding. Nothing to be ashamed of i'm sure
For a link to some of my photographs and poems try the may issue of the excellent anti war website The Handstand at www.the handstand.org
And Kev is not standing in the inner city and i would put a few quid on him beating the admittedly rather jokey figure of 69 this time out. Don't know how i am going to do but to clear things up our original candiate Christy 'not that one'Moore stood down because of an illness in the family. He is , of course, still helping with my campaign. I am using my campaign to raise a number of issues including anti bin tax, anti war, opposition to the referendum etc. Anyone in the area who wants to help out can e-mail me at [email protected]
In the meantime good look to all of the left wing candidates in the election. The most important thing will be putting the right on the back foot and from the polls it looks like this can be achieved.
I am going campaigning now so i won't have time to answer all the stoners who will undoubtedly be lining up below to accuse me and my party of heinous crimes against the revolution, ah well sticks and stones....

by Real Sane Person Sun May 16, 2004 15:11

If it is just an invention why is it the case that Michael Gallagher on another thread is saying that Wingfield has switched wards from Ballymun to North Inner City.

by Pat Sun May 16, 2004 16:50

and his Clonakilty Pudding?

Sounds like he's got a sense of humour!

Might get my vote if hes in my area, where are you running pudding?

by Vote Pudding Sun May 16, 2004 20:53

Fair play to you Dave for having a sense of humour, lots of others would have come on having a go.

Where would we all be if we couldn't laugh at things like this?

by eeekkkk Mon May 17, 2004 00:14

(Copied from Book – Clonakilty Red Pudding. Book dedicated to ‘Tom Barry’s Missing Statue’)

All strikes are wrong, particularly the ones that go on.
Bombs are good in Baghdad and Belgrade, bad in Belfast
Cheerlead every imperialist war.
Dissidents need not apply.
Editorial line, editorial line, editorial line.
Famines are caused by a shortage of food.
Good for business, good for all.
Hallelujah social partnership!!!
Ignore anti-capitalist and anti-racist events not organized by our friends.
Jail the poor.
Keep repeating the establishment line.
Letters from the organized left not printed. Letters from far right God-spouting nutters pride of place.
Middle class audience, middle class values.
NATO is a peacemaker and moral authority.
Orange marches are an expression of Protestant culture.
Prague didn’t happen, Genoa didn’t happen, Florence isn’t happening.
Queue’s in public services the fault of the staff.
Releases from PR agencies quoted verbatim as truth.
Sanctions which murder hundreds and thousands of children are ‘an understandable reaction to the threat of terrorism’.
Tell lies about the Nice Treaty.
UVF same as IRA.
Vanity mirror for the rich and politicians.
World Bank Good Good Good.
Xtreme left Bad Bad Bad.
Yes Yes men and Yes Yes women.
Zero coverage of Working Class Issues.

by Gangy Mon May 17, 2004 11:27

That poem just further demonstrates that the SWP are in fact a Left Republican and not a Socialist Party

by Patrick - SWP Mon May 17, 2004 12:00

Of course we are, but only if its a workers republic!

by Khalid Mon May 17, 2004 13:01

how are you going to appeal to the protestant working class with such a demand?

by Literary Critic Mon May 17, 2004 13:23

That's not much of a "poem", pudding. It's not that I disagree with the sentiments, but the style would be more accurately described as a sequence of grammar-free clauses in prose than a poem.

by the pudding - swp Mon May 17, 2004 15:05 dlordan at hotmail dot com

Ah what is a poem?
That's a good question. One no-one is able to answer i'd say.
Lit crit should join the poetry police in Oxbridge and Harvard
Plenty of stuffy old academics and pedants out there prepared to whip you for saying something different in a different way
Anyway i'm into the vatic myself, the oral tradition,
reading out loud in front of people that is so how it looks on the and how many clauses and wotsits it has doesn't really concern me too much. I'm running in Ballybrack by the way where pudding is universally revered- the meat pie that is, the blood sponge, the pigs guts, the hoof and gristle. Lovely stuff

by Dermot - WSM (personal viewpoint obviously) Wed May 19, 2004 00:21

I have to say that I admire the way Dave has entered into the slagging match that is this thread. Of course there is the bigger debate to be had about why should you stand in elections. But if your in a party that see's iteself as the van guard of the working class, you must stand up and not be voted for.

The damage is done by the way that the party conducts itself in other campaigns/fronts, or it's reluctance to work with people from other groups in real issues. Like is your party in the Campaign against the Racist Referendum?

Anyway Dave, you've shown an ability to engage and take a slagging, that in itself I find admirable.

Dermo

by the pudding(up close and personal capacity) - swp Wed May 19, 2004 13:50

AS for CARR
We have already begun distributing CARR 5000 leaflets out in Dun laoghire area. Our Branches around the place will be doing similiar work on the issue. We have gone door to door specifically on teh referendum. Our candidates also include a call for a no vote on ethir electiopn literature. Perhaps the WSM members out therein Dl and Shankill- conor and oisin could give us a hand.

There is a larger debate to be had about lots of things and it takes place every day out there in the real world. We had fifteen people at a little meeting Dun Laoghaire debating the fight against racism last night for instance.

I suggest that indymedia, to become a truly open forum for debate on the left shoukd seriously look at the ammount of sectarian bile and straigghtforward slander that gets poured out against left wing organisations on its wire.

A friend of mine works in an office where they print that stuff off and sit around during their teabreak laughing at the lot of us.

Now i'm all into comedy, but if the left ever wants to be taken seriously by the majority of people, we will have to take ouselves seriously as well.

I'd like to see more features and debates around current issues in the movement.

And our conduct in taking the initiative on working class issues and international political campaigns pisses a lot of sectarian lefties off i'm sure. But who gives a toss about them?

by Joe Wed May 19, 2004 14:22

Dave are you unable to spot the inconsistency between writing

"I suggest that indymedia, to become a truly open forum for debate on the left shoukd seriously look at the ammount of sectarian bile and straigghtforward slander that gets poured out against left wing organisations on its wire."

and

"I'd like to see more features and debates around current issues in the movement."

The problem is that just about every member of a left organisation here defines "features and debates around current issues in the movement" as 'what my party has to say about yours' but on the other hand defines "sectarian bile and straigght forward slander" as 'what your party has to say about mine'.

Which is not to say that one or the other doesn't exist, just that if you want "features and debates around current issues in the movement" you'll have to accept that some of those are going to be around problems with the SWP's behaviour.

by CARR critic Wed May 19, 2004 14:22

I don't think they should be. CARR is a liberal organisation of middle class types it has consistantly refused to put forward class based arguments against the referendum. Therefore socialists and anarchists in my view should just campaign independently of CARR in this referendum

by Amused Wed May 19, 2004 14:38

We all know about Kieran's plea to boycott IMC and RBB's alledged ludditism who also calls for a boycott.
Here we have Dave and on another thread Aoife going against their master's wishes.
Careful folks they will be opening a gulag for yis.

by Joe Wed May 19, 2004 14:54

Glad you brought this up 'CARR critic' (aka some SP member, you guys choose such obvious labels).

I was visiting my parents yesterday and noticed that they had Lisa Mahers election leaflet. Two pages of A4, text on both sides. I was curious to see how the SP was dealing with the referendum as I know your keen not to lose the votes of those who are voting yes but may also vote SP.

So I looked at the front, and I looked at the back, and I looked again.

The referendum wasn't even mentioned. We were asked to vote for Joe as well of course.

Whatever about the problems the SP sees in CARR (and I'm far from convinced its not just an excuse) I'll be giving out the CARR leaflets. They are after all quite a bit better than nothing. And so will the other WSM members although we also intend to produce leaflets of our own for a 2nd run in the areas where we distribute Workers Solidarity door to door.

I'm open to correction but this seems to be the state of play of the electoral parties in relation to the referendum

ISN - distributing CARR leaflet
SWP - distributing CARR leaflet (well done to them on this as this is despite them not getting their own way on some stuff)
WCA - Don't know but no mention of referendum in Perrys material at least.
SP - not giving out leaflet as afraid their voters might consider that the SP was calling them racist. Referendum not even mentioned in at least one of their election newsletters!
SF - seems to be left up to each area to make their own decision, not sure what this means on the ground but at least some SFers do seem to be taking it seriously.
Labour - joke position, only giving leaflet to people who ask for it!! Presumably their way of avoiding the SP's problem.
Green Party - another joke position, officially distributing leaflet but in reality I believe have only taken a few thousand.

by SP member Wed May 19, 2004 15:01

The SP are campaigning against the referendum. Have you seen the SP manifestoes that will be distributed to every house in every area the SP are standing? Have you read the latest 'Socialist Voice'? Obviously not.

One leaflet doesn't prove anything. There are several leaflets put out by each candidate that mentioning different issues. That leaflet you refer to probably doesn't mention the housing crisis or dublin bus privitisation, does that mean that the SP are shying away from these issues? Of course not! only the Sparts have that kind of logic

by Amused Wed May 19, 2004 15:03

Also interesting for those who follow IMC is that the puppies so far this morning have had a pop at anarchists, SF, CARR, USFI and the WCA. Busy puppies - surely the centre could find something better for them do.
And still we will get some SP person come on in the guise of trollwatch.
You've got to laugh!!!

by Phil McCormack Wed May 19, 2004 15:07

I am always amazed to see that people are always very quick to accuse all the trolls on this site to be 'SP puppies'. Do you not think that there are more trolls then SP trolls or that trolls may pretend to be SPers?

by Amused Wed May 19, 2004 15:10

Nobody is accusing the SP for all the trolls but then it's not hard to miss the puppies through their style and content.

by Phil McCormack Wed May 19, 2004 15:11

""Sinn Féin to challenge British Government sanction in Courts"

I always thought it was SF policy not to recognise the British courts in NI, yet another sell out??"

I would think that it would look more like a RSF troll saying this then a SP troll. The SP can hardly be accused of taking a traditional republican stance on the British courts.

by Phil McCormack Wed May 19, 2004 15:16

I just think the SP get a very hard time for being accused as trolls. I know for a fact that trolls come from every group and none. Some are very clever and even adopt the political lines and writing styles of others.

anyway do you not think the SP would have all their 'puppies' out putting up posters and posting leaflets and other menial electoral tasks?

by fubarr Wed May 19, 2004 15:23

Phil you are forgetting the SP are the source of all evil, they are authoritarian trots that are all waiting to sell us out. They are the only people that troll on this site. Anarchists are pure, they have never engaged in trolling.

by Chekov - 1 of IMC Wed May 19, 2004 15:27

As somebody who has been editing the site for the last couple of years, I think the pattern is very, very clear indeed. From an attempt to destroy a thread that was damanging to the SP, to very targetted attacks on SF members who are running against SP candidates, to a particular political line that is taken in recurrent attacks on every single other left group in Ireland, from USFI, to the Labour party, it is hard to escape the conclusion that a huge amount of the anonymous 'trolling' on this site comes from SP members. The suggestion that this could be people somehow playing a double bluff - pretending to be anonymous trolls who just happen to sound like they come from the SP is not credible in my opinion. I can't think why anybody would expend so much time and energy playing such an elaborate ruse.

It is also obvious to me that this behaviour is not discouraged by the leadership. I'd actually guess that it is informally encouraged by the leadership through "pub-talk" and this concurs with what has been said to me by members and ex-members of the party. It would be a rather simple matter for the SP to cut it out if they wanted to. They could start by stressing at internal meetings how damaging to the left such behaviour is. Furthermore, named members could post to the newswire publicly disagreeing with the trolls. This has happened a couple of times following lengthy bouts of particularly scurillous behaviour (eg. Brian C. responding to George O'Toole), but it is always a case of too little too late and such interventions are very rare in any case.

Anyway, this is my personal take on it as an indymedia editor, others in the IMC collective may have different opinions.

by Phil McCormack Wed May 19, 2004 15:36

Phil is my real name by the way. Although McCormack isn't, I don't wana put my real surname for work reasons but people who know me should know who I am.

There obviosly is some trolling from the SP. But I don't think that half of the trolling alleged to be coming from the SP is coming from them. I know well that there are people that get some kind of perverse fun out of coming on here pretending to be someone else and stirring shit between different left wing groups. These people are from many many groups and include right wingers and probably even the cops.

I think the best thing to do is to ignore the trolls and adopt a policy of simply hiding any blatent trolls. I also think IMC should look into having IP addresses displayed on all posts or having some system of logging in.

by Ray Wed May 19, 2004 15:36

Most of the anarchists posting on this site (Me, Joe, Chekov, anarcho, many more) post under the same name every time, and are clear about political affiliations, if any. This means people can compare our posts on different subjects, point out any inconsistencies, and generally carry on a continuing debate.
Many of the people who criticise anarchism, on the other hand, post under disposable names. They don't want to be tied down to a consistent identity, because they don't want to be held accountable for what they said the day before, or what their party has done. They want to criticise, in other words, without it being possible for anyone else to criticise them.
There are plenty of such anonymous posters on here, of all descriptions. But there are quite a few who use arguments and terminology _extremely_ reminiscent of the SP. When they walk like ducks, and quack like ducks, but refuse to say what they are, its a fair bet that at least some of them are ducks.
If the SP members on this site are unhappy about trolling being blamed on the SP, then more of them could post under their own names, or at least consistent names. If there were more visible SP posters, then we'd be less likely to assume that anonymous posters are in the SP (and the anonymous SP posters would realise that their comrades don't think anonymous posting is a good idea)

by Phil McCormack Wed May 19, 2004 15:49

I understand that trolling is coming from some SPers but it is very easy for someone to parrot off the 'terminology' of the SP and try to pretend to be a SPer. I'm sure I could do it myself if I read through a few SP papers and books.

I just think the whole debate about who is trolling is a bit of a waste of time. The fact remains that there will always be trollers from every group while IMC allows completely anaonmous posts. Until we ever get a system that shows IP addresses or requires logging in under a user name we should simply ignore them. The only reaosn they do it is because people react and give them their perverse pleasure.

I know people in the SP and they don't have a clue who is behind all this. they are actually sick of it as everytime a SP member posts something of interest up, such as Joe Higgins campaign launch, the comments simply descend into tirades of abuse against the SP. As a result most SP members have abandoned even going near this site. There is also a perception in the SP that the editors of IMC are biased against the SP, meny members have rightly said to me that insults and slanders against the SP are allowed stay up for longer in comparison to those against other groups. One person pointed out to me that some fool put up a post that alleged the SP of rigging the elections in 2002 which was not taken down, when a similar post went up alleging FF of riggin ght eeletions a few weeks later it was deleted immediately. This is just one example.

I am convinced that recent trolls are not SPers because I know that the SP are going full whack at the elections now. All the alleged 'puppies' are out electioneering and don't have time to be trolling.

by Joe Wed May 19, 2004 15:50

I agree with Ray, in fact I'd go beyond it and suggest that a lot of the nastier SP trolling may be the work of just one person as the style is very similar across posts. I believe the identity of this person is widely know within the SP and that they are part of the leadership.

It should be very easy for the party to deal with this. The problem is if you don't then it will become easier and easier for others to make use of this practise and create fake SP trolls that the rest of us take seriously.

In paticular the case of the persistant provocations needs to be dealt with by the SP ASAP. This has been going on for well over a year and the trail left is very, very easy to follow home. I can re-post some of the relevant URLs if you wish.

Given the history of the sort of damage this sort of provocation has caused on the left I would be mortified to be in the same organisation as someone doing it. The problem is that todays SP seems to operate very much on a 'ends justifying means' basis. As well as tolerating and perhaps encouraging provocation SP members have threated to sue indymedia and (along with fascists) have tried to crash indymedia to prevent people reading articles that the SP found embarrassing.

For many of us that once respected the SP the tolerance of this sort of thing has caused us to profoundly re-evaluate our opinion of your organisation. Telling us that these are the actions of individual members or people pretending to be members does not wash. Sort it out!

by Brian C - SP (personal cap) Wed May 19, 2004 15:52

I've been impersonated on more than two dozen occasions on this site. Now a few of those impersonations have been satire or whatever, but the large majority have been people pretending to be me and attacking someone else. The idea being to cause bad blood.

I'm not even the member of the Socialist Party who has most often been on the receiving end of that kind of shit. Not even close.

So do people go to the bother of pretending to be SP members in order to attack someone else and cause hostility towards the SP? Yes. They clearly do.

The thing is though that any halfway sophisticated troll quickly realises that using an actual person's name is too easily detected. Which means we have also seen trolls invent entirely fictional members of the SP or SY in order to have a go at people and create resentment.

A troll with a capacity to learn will quite quickly pick up that making up a fictional identity is itself fairly easy to detect. The SP might be large by the standards of the Irish left but we aren't all that big and somebody would know you. Much better to simply launch hamfisted anonymous attacks on people phrased in such a way as to give the impression that you are in the SP.

None of that is a conspiracy theory. The first two are established fact. The third just its logical extension, unless you think that a few people are willing to go to the trouble of impersonating named members of the SP and creating fictional members of the SP but for some reason wouldn't be willing to post things with the same aim in an only slightly more sophisticated way.

So are there trolls doing the above? Yes and you would have to be quite extraordinarily naive to think otherwise. Are there a couple of fairly stupid posters who are in the SP who are quite capable of making fools of themselves without the help of trolls? Yes, that too. However, there are posters like that from every organisation and none.

It comes back to the same issue again. Indymedia's design is not suited to use as a discussion board. It is suited to news reports and peer review because that's what it was intended to be for.

Irish Indymedia, pretty much uniquely out of all the IMCs, has become in large part a discussion board. A discussion board which allows the use of an unlimited number of false identities is one that simply can't cope with real disagreements. The potential for mischief and slander is just too high for an idiot with a grudge an a few spare minutes on his hands to pass up.

by Sp member Wed May 19, 2004 15:57

"Are there a couple of fairly stupid posters who are in the SP who are quite capable of making fools of themselves without the help of trolls? Yes, that too"

Who exactly are you refering to Brian?

by Ray Wed May 19, 2004 16:00

"One person pointed out to me that some fool put up a post that alleged the SP of rigging the elections in 2002 which was not taken down, when a similar post went up alleging FF of riggin ght eeletions a few weeks later it was deleted immediately. This is just one example."

So is this one person Stephen Boyd, who's complained about this before? He knows, because I explained it to him, and because he was reading the site at the time, that this is far from the full story.
At the time, some members of the SP were arguing that the Black Block in Genoa had been infiltrated by the police. They were asked again and again to provide some evidence for the allegation, and they repeatedly failed to do so, but repeated the allegation anyway.
After days of pointing out that you shouldn't make accusations about things that you couldn't prove, I asked how they'd ike it if people did the same thing to them - for example, by alleging that the SP had fixed the 2002 elections. They didn't like that. Complaints to the editorial list followed, I got buttonholed at pub quizzes, mass hysteria from all the SP members. Why? Because someone did to them what they had did to others.
Now, anyone who was following events here knows that the allegation of election-fixing wasn't serious. It was an example of how damaging unsourced allegations could be, but wasn't intended to be taken seriously. The fact that you are told that this allegation was made, without any qualifications or context, doesn't surprise me, but that kind of deliberately misleading statement doesn't inspire confidence in the SP's respect for indymedia. Or the truth.

by Ray Wed May 19, 2004 16:03

Bloody hell.
"what they had DONE to others", obviously.

by Anonymous (troll 1) Wed May 19, 2004 16:06

The SP are all wankers etc etc etc

by Phil McCormack Wed May 19, 2004 16:07

I've never talked to Stevie Boyd in my life.

It is not right to adopt a 'eye for an eye' approach to the editorial list.

Editors can't make baseless allegations against organisations just because that organisation made an allegation that you don't like.

By the way, the debate isn't really about this but I think it was fairly obvious that there was police infiltration into the protesters in Genoa including the BB. If i remember correctly WSM said as much at the time. Recent police infiltration in Dublin on May Day is proof that this sort of thing happens.

by Brian C (troll 2) Wed May 19, 2004 16:07

The WSM are all wankers

by Robbie Smith (troll 3) - SP Wed May 19, 2004 16:09

Direct action is always wrong. It's just a bunch of hippies with dogs on string. The real issue is what workers do. The only direct action worth talking about is strike action.

by Joe Wed May 19, 2004 16:11

Brian means the same people the rest of us are referring to. You've big mouths and you like to boast off line. Dublin is a small enough place and people talk.

As to Brian's main point. Sure some of the trolls might not be what they appear but with the provocation in particular this is a pattern going back well over a year. There is no serious doubt about the political background of this person and you need to do something about it. The problem is the longer you leave it the easier it gets for nastier forces to start doing this and your denials won't be believed then any easier than they are believed now.

With other SP members including Tahoma repeating the provocations as fact the situation has got worse rather then better.

by Anarchowatcher (troll 4) Wed May 19, 2004 16:12

What you lot were doing last week wasn't democracy it was petit-bourgeois individualism. Just like when the anarchists in Spain failed to etc etc etc

by Phil McCormack Wed May 19, 2004 16:13

I also think the editorial list was very very quick to publish the Joan collins story as a feature. OK, it is of interest to people but there are similar stories that could probably be found about other groups that don't get featured.

There is a widespread belief among SP members that the IMC editors are biased against the SP, and there is prime face evidence of this. election rigging allegations, featuring of Collins story, 'eye for eye' editorial approach...

Maybe if the editorial list took a more balanced approach SP trolls would not feel the compulsion to come onto this site and troll.

by Phil McCormack Wed May 19, 2004 16:16

"With other SP members including Tahoma "

What makes you think Tahoma is an SP member? He could be some idiot troll pretending to be an Sp member just to stir the shit.

The thing is that we don't know who the trolls are so we shoudl jusst ignore them!

by Ray Wed May 19, 2004 16:20

"It is not right to adopt a 'eye for an eye' approach to the editorial list. "

And the person suggesting that was...?

"Editors can't make baseless allegations against organisations just because that organisation made an allegation that you don't like."

Editors, eh? You know, I haven't been an editor for at least six months (since my web-based email exploded, Ray fans). So, you've been around a while then. Posting under a different name perhaps?

Since the allegation I made was
1. Not made in my capacity as editor
2. Clearly intended to be understood to be untrue
I think it was at least as legitimate as the allegation made repeatedly, over the course of at least a week, by SP members, who were repeatedly asked for some evidence and repeatedly failed to provide any. And they were serious about that allegation, not making a point about the need for evidence.

"By the way, the debate isn't really about this but I think it was fairly obvious that there was police infiltration into the protesters in Genoa including the BB."

Do you have any evidence that this is the case? Or is it just a gut feeling?

"If i remember correctly WSM said as much at the time."

Cite?

"Recent police infiltration in Dublin on May Day is proof that this sort of thing happens."

Not in question. I'd be the first to admit the possibility of police infiltration into _any_ demonstration, whether that be the AEIP demo on Mayday, an anti-bincharges demo at City Hall, or the black block in Genoa. But I'm not going to argue, in print or in conversation with Irish Times journalists, that 'everybody knows' the Genoa black block was infiltrated unless I can come up with some hard evidence of that infiltration.

I can point to fixed elections all over the world as proof that that sort of thing happens. But that's a long way from demonstrating that a named party fixed a named election, isn't it?

by Joe Wed May 19, 2004 16:24

I think everyone feels when someone is having a go at their group that the editors should be doing something about it. Consider the 'George O'Toole' case, if we were the SP our reaction would have been to demand that such an obviously fake post be removed. And when this didn't happen we'd have cried unfair.

On the other hand if I'd threatened to sue indymedia on a couple of occasions, tried to wreck the site once and constantly trolled on it I'd feel the editors might have it in for me as well.

The SP need to realise that indymedia is here to stay and their various attempts to wreck it or discourage people using it are counter productive. All this crap, including the George O Toole stuff, is being read by up to 15,000 people. Your really pissing all over yourself which is a pity because quite a few of your members have shown themselves well capable of seriously defending your postions. A pity they have been taken aside and told the line.

by Phil McCormack Wed May 19, 2004 16:27

I really don't want to get into the debate about cops infiltrating Genoa. All I will say is that I remember at the time that everyone on the left, including anarchists, were saying that many in the BB were agent provocateurs. I don't have evidence, because I was not there and couldn't really be bothered to do the research.

On the 'eye for an eye' editoirial approach. you are the person that suggested and justified implementing such an approach. You said clearly that anonomous baseless allegations about the SP rigging elections should remain because of unsubstantiated allegations of cop infiltration in the BB made by Sp members. This is an 'eye for an eye' approach and in my view backs up the feeling of many SP members when they say the IMC editors are biased against the SP.

by Brian C Wed May 19, 2004 16:27

The four examples are all trolls that are actually aimed at the SP, even though only the first one is openly targeted at us.

The other three are all supposedly attacks on anarchists, but are with different degrees of sophistication actually designed to get people to throw shit at the SP. See how easy it is? And in fact a small number of people do exactly that.

Are there a couple of SP members who use the site and who are quite capable of causing a stupid row with their own toes? Yes of course. But so what? I will remind Joe, that the SP is on the receiving end of many times more abuse than any other organisation on this board and has been ever since the SWP decamped en masse.

In the absence of improvements to the design of the site that exclude the instant psuedonym, the only solution is for everyone to grow up a bit and stop reacting to this kind of shit. . There is, contrary to the assumptions of some, no way to know who you are arguing with. If someone has a genuine criticism to make of some left group or other than in almost all cases they should be able to do it under their real name or a readily identifiable psuedonym. Responding to anonymous trolls just makes all of us look stupid and it just encourages more.

If trolls persist in posting the same rubbish repeatedly, the editors should take it straight back down again. A combination of that with a bit more self-discipline from site regulars would greatly improve the atmosphere and utility of this place.

by Ray Wed May 19, 2004 16:29

"I also think the editorial list was very very quick to publish the Joan collins story as a feature. OK, it is of interest to people but there are similar stories that could probably be found about other groups that don't get featured."

You know, when someone posts a long, detailed article about something that a lot of people are interested in, there's a good chance it will be made into a feature. When some fucker tries to bring down the site in order to stop people from reading that article, you're lucky IMC don't mail a copy of the article to every house in Ireland, let alone make it into a feature.

Yeah, there are other stories that could be found somewhere. So FIND THEM YOURSELF. YOU write an article, and then maybe IMC will make it into a feature. But when you complain that nobody will make features of articles that don't exist, that you expect other people to write for you, you're going to get laughed at, and rightly so.


"There is a widespread belief among SP members that the IMC editors are biased against the SP"

Who are the IMC editors? People who use the site.
What is there to stop SP members from becoming editors? Laziness and a persecution complex.
Stop whining and contribute.

by Brian C Wed May 19, 2004 16:36

I used to contrubute here fairly regularly. I used to take part in discussion on the editorial list. I even went through periods of telling people who hadn't ever seen the site to check it our for such things as bin tax news.

I'm not on the list anymore. I post here less and less often. I wouldn't dream of recommending the site to anyone at the moment. Why?

Because the atmosphere here is absolutely toxic. Everything of merit gets drowned in a sea of bickering and anonymous abuse. No useful discussions take place at all and the useful news stories are followed by fifty seven postings about the same old shite. There is no point in thowing anything worthwhile into a cesspit. And I certainly wouldn't advise anyone to swim in one.

by Joe Wed May 19, 2004 16:37

Phil I think Brian C can confirm to you that 'Tahoma' is indeed an alias used by an SP member

Brian your examples are amusing but prove nothing beyond that this sort of thing is possible. As I've repeatadly pointed out I'm not assuming every troll is an SP member I'm referring to consistent behavior that has gone on for a very long period of time. I reckon you KNOW that the person concerned is an SP member and I also think you also reckon you KNOW who it is. The SP can't stop every troll on indymedia, not can it stop every troll who pretends to by an SPer. It can do something about SP members who engage in that sort of trolling and more importantly the provocation. Thats all that is being asked, quite ducking it and sort it out!

by Ray Wed May 19, 2004 16:41

"I don't have evidence, because I was not there and couldn't really be bothered to do the research. "

Top tip - if you don't want people to criticise you, don't make allegations that you can't back up.

"On the 'eye for an eye' editoirial approach. you are the person that suggested and justified implementing such an approach. You said clearly that anonomous baseless allegations about the SP rigging elections should remain because of unsubstantiated allegations of cop infiltration in the BB made by Sp members. This is an 'eye for an eye' approach and in my view backs up the feeling of many SP members when they say the IMC editors are biased against the SP."

No, this is the "application of consistent standards" approach. I don't think site policy is or should be that the SP gets to post one unsourced allegation for every allegation made against it, or that every time someone slags the WSM they get a free slag against the Trots of their choice. That would be 'eye-for-an-eye'.

When someone wants to have a post deleted from the site, I think its legitimate to ask if that post contravenes a policy (or if a policy should be created to deal with that sort of post), rather than just take down anything that anyone complains about. That's why impersonations are taken down, no matter who is being impersonated, that's why posts that are provably untrue, or racist, are taken down, no matter who posted them.

In the case of the allegations about election fixing and police infiltration, there didn't seem to be a rule that would delete one but leave the other one up (apart from a possible "Take down anything that the SP doesn't like" rule). If you can think of such a rule, let me know.

by Brian C Wed May 19, 2004 16:47

I can confirm that somebody who is in the SP seems to have used the name Tahoma over a longish period of time. I have no idea if any particular post or set of posts using the name Tahoma came from that person.

Joe, I'm a bit baffled by your theory that there is a Dr Evil figure in the SP leadership entertaining himself by causing trouble on this site. I think I can probably guess who you are talking about but I also think that person has better things to be doing.

I will go out of my way to tell the SP members I know of who use this site to avoid using multiple psuedonyms, to cut out whatever proportion of the shit-stirring they are responsible for and to stop rising to the bait more generally. I don't think that will make a great deal of difference to the general atmosphere of this place however.

by Anonymous Wed May 19, 2004 16:57

"I've never talked to Stevie Boyd in my life."

Pull the other one!

by Chekov - 1 of Indymedia Ireland Wed May 19, 2004 17:44

Your examples of trolling don't really hit the spot. All of them would be deleted by editors as they fall under the 'abuse without other content' guideline. The really damaging trolling by people such as "George O'Toole" can't be deleted as there is no guideline which covers it. I am an editor, I knew straight away that it was written by a provocateur, but that's not good enough to delete it, I would have to present very clear evidence to the editorial list that the post was fake to do so. The editors are actually very vigilant when it comes to favouritism towards any particular groups. If you can find any real examples of bias towards particular groups, please point them out to us, don't just throw vague accusations about bias on our part - it just amounts to another unsubstantiated bout of mud throwing.

The answer to this trolling is not to ignore it, nor is it for IMC to ban all anonymous posts. There are good reasons for allowing anonymity and many of the anonymous 'trolls' have turned out to be telling the truth in the past. The Joan Collins story is a case in point - it was raised by anonymous posters for months here and denounced as trolling (and often hidden) by named and anonymous trolls before it became clear that it was substantially true. Other stories that were critical of the SP have received similar sustained attacks from anonymous trolls. The patterns of trolling on those occasions made it very very clear that they were eminating from the SP, although I believe that there are at least 2 figures from the SP who are actively engaged in this on a continuing basis, and I am very confident that I know who they are.

The way to deal with trolling that _appears_ to come from SP people is for _identifiable_ SP posters to post and point out the fact that they disagree with the sentiments expressed and that they feel the poster may be a provocateur. This has proved a very effective method of getting rid of anonymous trolls who _appear_ to be coming from an anarchist point of view.

by SP Member Wed May 19, 2004 19:56

The example you use about the Joan Collins story is again an example of inaccuracy, something which really gets up the noses of the few (very few) SP members that fequent this site. For months trolls were post commetns that Joan Collins was deselected as an SP candidate - DID NOT HAPPEN. Joan Collins chose not to stand as an SP candidate. The accusations were repeatedly answered on this site by SP members, but what was the point, all the trolls are interested in is stirring the sh*t. You then suggest that the article written by Dermot Connolly proved that the trolling was accurate - AGAIN FALSE, it did no such thing. Also just because Dermot Connolly stated something as fact does not make it so. For quite a long time he was attacked because he represented the SP. But now because he posts something critical then he must be telling the truth. SP members by and large ignored the Dermot Connolly post because we knew that it was not intended as part of a discussion (he made no attempt to raise these issues within the SP) but was intended to stir the sh*t. Also it was not primarily about the bin tax campaign. There was never an intention by Dermot to engage in any debate on this issue on indymedia. That is the reason why I for one felt it was totally biased to make it a featured item. I could write lots of long critical articles on SF, the WSM, the CW5 etc. but I doubt very much if they would be featured.

It is clear that certain political agendas are promoted while othrs attacked on indymedia. If you do not think so then I suggest you wipe the mist from your glasses. Indymedia is suffering as a result of the way it is used by trolls and will never be able to develop beyond it very peripheral position if this among many other things isn't changed.

by Ray Thu May 20, 2004 09:17

Then do it. Write a long, detailed article, related to a current subject that people have been interested in (bin charges, anti-war activity, anti-racism, globalisation). Make sure that it contains new information, rather than just a rehashing of existing stuff, and contains a different perspective to those that have been heard before (as Dermot's did). Then find a Shinner, anarchist, or Catholic Worker stupid enough to try to crash the site to prevent people from reading your article.

If you do all that, but your article doesn't get made into a feature, THEN you have a right to complain. But for now you're just complaining that other people won't do the things you're too lazy to do yourself.

by Ben Thu May 20, 2004 10:37

"Joan Collins chose not to stand as an SP candidate. "

SP member you are either lying or being lied to. Which is it?
The NC told Joan she was not running and that she had to concentrate on her party work. That doesn't seem like much of a choice to me.

by the pudding - swp Thu May 20, 2004 10:43

Jaysus, you'd have to be totally demented to read down through the pile of bile and bitching above. I think people are spending too much time at home in their bedrooms, and between wanks and puffs on the bong dreaming up conspiracies about rival groups. Seriously though, i think indymedias cool, but it could be a lot more relevant, all parties and factions have something to contribute i'm sure, particularly on A) debating big issues B) local stories- we are all involved in local campaigns and sometimes we never get to hear of them from each other.
One reason i don't get involved more is because i think its basically the same crew, or some of them anyway, in the DGN, RTS, and indymedia. Even though i know there are some great dissident journos like the crud involved as well. There's nothing wrong in being involved in different campaigns, but all of these groups are basically led by committed anarchists. Nothing wroing with anarchists either, but they don't give us trots much love and understanding. Last two times i went to RTS i was verbally abused and threatened with physical assault. I know its only a couple of pissheads pretending to be activists- like that eejit the path- and that a lot of the wsm crew are against this type of intimidation but i really couldn't be bothered having anything to do with jokers like that. I'd like to be assured that indymedia was independent of these guys, which i;d say do a lot of the anti-swp trolling as well. Then i'd love to help out more. I'll probably be told to fuck off now but again who cares really?.

by Persecution watch Thu May 20, 2004 10:55

Ever think that your antics and the politics of your party might have something to do with the responses you get. The way you are going on here, I'm expecting the SWP to be in line for beatification shortly (why not eh? Muslim turn in Britain, Catholic turn here - anything to work with those who are not pro-choice).
You seem to have a peculiar liking for sitting on Kieran's shoulder and shouting 'agent' at those who disagree with the SWP line. Maybe when the SWP act like a serious organisation instead of a group which has the attention span of a goldfish perhaps then you might be taken seriously.

by Ray Thu May 20, 2004 11:03

Some interesting psychological studies have been done on the perceptions of men and women, or boys and girls. In particular, it seems that people (m and f) expect men to talk much more than women, so that in a mixed group where men do 80% of the talking, people will think that is normal. If a woman speaks even half as much as the average man, she is seen as pushy and very talkative. In mixed schools, people automatically call on boys more than girls, and expect boys to talk more than girls, and if the contribution by girls rises above about 25% then observers report it as being "female-dominated".

The people who set up indymedia, the ones that I've met at least, aren't anarchists. As far as I know, there are no more than two or three anarchists on the editorial list (out of more than a dozen contributors), and anarchists have always been (AFAIK) a minority of the active editors. Similarly, though indymedia will frequently _cover_ RTS and DGN events, because they're interested in them, and though people involved in RTS will frequently post to the site*, I don't think there's much real overlap between the two sets of organisers.

Anarchists aren't really everywhere. (Yet.) On the other hand, there are plenty of people on indymedia with developed political ideas, which they aren't afraid to share. I can see how that could be shocking to someone who spends most of his time in front groups, and how it could be comforting to explain the fact that people disagree with you by appealing to some vast anarchist conspiracy.

* because people involved in RTS and similar events are comfortable with the idea of thinking and speaking for themselves, rather than waiting for the committee to tell them the correct line.

by seedot - non-anarchist editor of IMC Thu May 20, 2004 12:49

During the recent Mayday media centre there was a debate between international protestors, Indymedia Ireland and Indymedia UK about what indymedia is, how it relates to 'the movement' and what the principles of it are. It's probably a sign of the lack of bias in IMC Ireland that the exact opposite of the complaints from Dave were being made of us - we were corporate lackeys, had deserted the principles of Indymedia, supported electoralism etc.

I was surprised when I heard how the principle of non-hierarchical was interpreted in the UK - they deleted all content from hierarchical groups (such as SWP etc.). I am happy to report that the Irish anarchist members of the editorial group did not support this approach and felt our model was much more open.

Indymedia is not solely about or by the contributors to these long and interminable debates - many of the editors have removed themselves from much of the debate here as they would agree with the view that it is often of little value - amusement maybe but thats about it. Some debates have the opportunity to be more valuable - if you look at the 'Plea to the Left' thread two editors are debating the anarchist approach to voting and elections with anarchists, one of whom is on the editorial collective with them. there is no Indymedia political line in Ireland, unlike in many other countries. But even that debate got sidetracked by bickering, point scoring and other shite - another example of competitive socialism that turns people off.

The dissident journo you mention has a phrase for Indymedia - dictatorship of the doers. So if someone writes 12,000 words on a subject, published only on Indymedia Ireland, someone else proposes it as a front page feature and does the formatting it will generally be approved. The only reasons I have seen that something like this haven't been approved is either because there is another feature waiting (we generally only do one every couple of days) or someone has a specific issue with the text (rare). All choices for the front page are subjective so arguments that something is not important enough are not really valid - they were obviously important enough for someone to do the work and only when given a choice between features will issues of relevance and importance come up.

The number behind the scenes is small - 15 editors, about 10 active with probably another 5 people active on the lists and 5 or 6 people whos activity is real world only. The majority of these would not be in any political group - those that are come from a (surprisingly) wide range. But when a call went out for help on the media centre - DGN people came in and painted / swept floors / climbed on roofs etc. Loads of other people helped but DGN were the most obvious 'group'. However, a member of your party Dave did loads of work on the photo exhibition and sourced some really cool equipment.

Two things could ghettoise IMC Ireland IMO. If we did develop an anarchist bias towards editorial or if other views took the content as a sign of this and saw RTS/DGN/Indymedia as part of the same project. We can do the first - but if others don't stay involved Dave, we've lost anyway. (BTW - the re-emergence of SP / SWP / SF on the newswire in the last while is probably contributing to some of the acrimonious debate as some users of the site feel there has been an Indymedia 'line' for a while. If the range of views became expressed in articles / features rather than comments this would be much more positive).

Final question - do people have views on how Indymedia should cover the elections without becoming a repository for political advertising / bitching?

by Joe Thu May 20, 2004 13:39

In terms of ideas for the election why not do something similar to Mayday and have a June 11th feed (or whatever its called) for all electoral and referendum stuff. Maybe even some of the parties would link to this feed in the way that DGN linked to the Mayday 2004 from the news section of our site. (Maybe hell will freeze over). See http://struggle.ws/eufortress/news.htm for this, its actually pretty cool providing you can get over the control freakery about stopping people reading negative comments about you.

As to preventing bitching - well given SP/SWP/Labour/SF trolling for the months before the election on indymedia I think you'd be wasting your time even trying! I think the smarter people in these parties are realising that muck raking trolling actually damages the party doing it more than the party it is being aimed at. It's normally very easy to spot the source no matter how anonymous the ID tag.

I think the main reason indymedia is seen as an anarchist front by the trots is because (most) anarchists are so vocal in supporting it. Our web pages link to indymedia, we print the URL in our publications, we write articles for it, some helped set up the centre, others help keep it running. In trot circles this is a sure indication that something is a front (the links sections on trot web pages are a very fast way of working out whose front is whose, they only ever link to their own).

Someone in the SP refered to the 'marginal' position of indymedia. You can crudely compare the marginality of indymedia and the SP web site at Alexi which ranks pages according to their traffic count. Number 1 is obviously the most popular web site.

Indymedia.ie is number 177,962 at the moment
Socialistparty.net is number 3,096,868 at the moment

by Ben Thu May 20, 2004 18:27

"Joan Collins chose not to stand as an SP candidate. "

So which was it? Lying or being lied to?

by SP Member Thu May 20, 2004 19:52

you shouldn't believe everything you read on indymedia. Joan Collins had the option of standing as an SP candidate. She was asked to agree to a set of guidelines that all SP candidates have to agree to. She chose not to do that and to stand as an independent. I do not believe there is a single member of the SP that does not regret the fact that Joan Collins is not running as an SP candidate. She is a person that I have tremendous respect for. But these things happen. I wish her every success in the election and her election will be an enormous benefit to the working class if she is successful.

By the way I don't spend all my time sitting in front of a computer waiting to respond to the stuff that comes up on indymedia. I have far too much other work to be doing. It is occasionally a bit of light relief.