Why this article has been removed?

480 posts / 0 new
Last post
Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Oct 11 2017 08:34
Red Marriott wrote:
He bullshitted you and you all wanted to believe it, regardless of other damning evidence.

The additional evidence we saw back in 2011 was enough to persuade us at that point he was skirting the line but had not stepped over it (e.g. slides from the talk he was criticised for doing showed it was a disaster and emergency service related, not policing, and emails showing he didn't author the Chaos theory article but instead agreed for an author credit – misguidedly – to hit publishing targets). But that is not the case now. I wouldn't say I wanted to believe it as such, as I have no sort of relationship with any of the Aufheben people. I'm not even sure I've met any of them. It's possible I've bumped into one or two of them at a book fair, but do not know any of them by sight, or any of them by name/online identity other than JD. I guess in general I would prefer to give comrades the benefit of the doubt, and back then I do not believe the critics had met the burden of proof (considering our independent investigation). But like I said that is clearly not the case now. I think back then the sheer nature of some of the criticisms, which were essentially overblown snitch jacketing, did provoke an unnecessarily defensive reaction from us, when criticism from others such as yourself was reasonable and constructive.

Nymphalis Antiopa
Offline
Joined: 27-12-15
Oct 11 2017 10:46
Quote:
emails showing he didn't author the Chaos theory article

I wondered if it was possible to see these emails from whenever it was. I am sure, several years afterwards and with you on the point of banning him (I presume)for crossing the line, that these could now be made public.

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Oct 11 2017 11:37

The crucial question, for most critics I think, was not whether he was at that moment in time engaged in directly helping develop police strategy but that the whole orientation and trajectory of that field of 30 year research inevitably and clearly did - and still does.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Oct 11 2017 13:10
Red Marriott wrote:
The crucial question, for most critics I think, was not whether he was at that moment in time engaged in directly helping develop police strategy but that the whole orientation and trajectory of that field of 30 year research inevitably and clearly did - and still does.

from my perspective that was a separate issue. I know some articles, for example by wildcat if I recall correctly, specifically were around this issue, and we gave no comment on these to my recollection as I think we would generally agree with that sort of critique of academia.

I haven't read any of this stuff in years but from my recollection the primary allegation against JD back then was his being the co-author of Chaos Theory, and presenting some talk, both of which we looked into and found we didn't have a problem with (in that he didn't write Chaos Theory, and the talk wasn't related to policing/public order).

So yeah no disagreement in this more general criticism. But like I said I think back then positions got a bit entrenched due to the extremes probably on both sides (for example many people/websites, including Aaron Bastani of Novara recently, claiming that libcom works with police etc).

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Oct 11 2017 13:33

Bastani said that? Jfc. I haven't actually paid much attention to Novara since they became cheerleaders for Corbin tbh.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Oct 11 2017 13:53
Fleur wrote:
Bastani said that? Jfc. I haven't actually paid much attention to Novara since they became cheerleaders for Corbin tbh.

yes, but that was because we were criticising him for supporting the B10 group who defended a serial sexual abuser. After that he pretty much blocked us on social media then claimed that, amongst other things

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Oct 11 2017 14:09

Wouldn't those accusations, even as a retaliatory thing, have some of it's roots in the snitch jacketing, guilt by association, tittle tattle emanating from this time? Tbh, never read Aufheben, know none of the protagonists but the gossip and denunciations did verge upon a paranoid witch hunt, dragging in & potentially exposing people who had nothing to do with it. Knowing someone, who knows someone, who knows someone who once wrote something is a long way away from you're all fucking cops, imo.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Oct 11 2017 20:08
Ret Marut wrote:
The crucial question, for most critics I think, was not whether he was at that moment in time engaged in directly helping develop police strategy but that the whole orientation and trajectory of that field of 30 year research inevitably and clearly did - and still does.

If we look at the TPTG open letter (I hadn't recently so just re-read it), it has several clear allegations that JD was 'engaged in directly helping develop police strategy'. Several people, me included, did a shitty job separating the specific allegations that he denied, the broader implications of the research that he definitely did do, and the way the allegations were presented when discussing it all. Had the argument about trajectory been made without any contested factual information and direct doxxing, then possibly that could have been the 'crucial question' and a more productive discussion, and if we'd been less defensive possibly it could have too.

Here's just a few examples, all from the first open letter:

TPTG wrote:
Therefore, JD and Co. propose ways of policing that not only hinder such crowd members’ unification, but on the contrary perpetuate – or, even better, extend - already existing separations amongst them
TPTG wrote:
JD and Co. are not paid to limit themselves to a pure theoretical debate. They provide their readers, who as mentioned before include senior police officers, researchers, policy makers and fellow academic cop consultants, with practical guidelines, regarding the most suitable police tactics. To this end, they give two “examples of knowledge-based policing in practice”. It is important to notice that after having dealt with the practical details, JD and Co. ask their readers to bear in mind that what their “approach provides is a means of asking the questions from which these specifics can be developed” [p. 414] and it is certainly not a question of “‘one size fits all’ public order policing. The specifics must always be tailored to the given event” [p. 414].
TPTG wrote:
One common excuse often used by academics, who collaborate with the state and its various repression mechanisms, is that what they do is of purely theoretical value. Apparently this is not the case here, as the authors feel the need to back up their theoretical principles with strong evidence obtained from field-research, while they also present the practical outcome of the implementation of their guidelines “in all the [Portuguese] areas under the Public Security Police’s control (which covers all the major cities in Portugal and seven of the ten tournament venues)”
TPTG wrote:
What is also striking is the 100% police perspective that characterizes their article
TPTG wrote:
It is obvious that JD and Co. have long ago taken sides in the class war and their aim to overcome “seemingly intractable conflicts between the police and other [than hooligans] alienated groups in our society” [p. 414], as expressed in the very end of the article, is clearly about pacifying class struggles.

This isn't about trajectories, it's direct accusations of advising the police on specific tactics.

In 2011 I hadn't had to deal with (or even read about) many similar situations to this, but since then we've had Michael Schmidt (which I caught up very late on, but reading the development of the situation developing over a year or two in a compressed couple of weeks was eye opening), multiple cases of sexual assault in activist groups (and denial, victim-blaiming, institutional cover-up in some of those) coming to light, the Pitchford inquiry, Michael Rectenwald and others. This situation is different to all of those, but especially with Schmidt, the messy way the information came out and the defensiveness in some quarters with which it was received showed similar dynamics. There's a general failure in how political groups handle accountability that's pretty endemic and needs examining (something that's as important as the general argument about academia). The only place I've seen any real decent work happening on this is by victims of sexual assault though, and that's only partly applicable to situations like this.

fleur wrote:
Wouldn't those accusations, even as a retaliatory thing, have some of it's roots in the snitch jacketing, guilt by association, tittle tattle emanating from this time?

Bastani's post included a screenshot of the non-fides article, which is entitled 'libcom and aufheben working with the police', so yes.

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Oct 11 2017 22:08

Hold on, Novara works with Paul Mason, who is pretty pro police & army these days, wouldn't have thought it would be much of an issue for Bastani anyway. wink

bootsy
Offline
Joined: 30-11-09
Oct 11 2017 22:17

Mike Herman's account of what happened when TPTG's First Open Letter was initially published is extremely misleading as he misses out some rather crucial details. The text was removed for far longer than would have been necessary to simply redact names and the initial justification from Libcom was not only that the text contained JD's name but also that it contained many lies and blatant "smears". Then once the Open Letter was finally published it contained an image of pinochio with an enlarged nose along with a disclaimer alleging that it contained many lies and was being reproduced for reference only.

There were no lies in the original open letter though and if anything the TPTG and Samotnaf have been thoroughly vindicated by the more recent information shared in this thread. For anyone who is unfamiliar with this whole thing I would encourage you to be extremely skeptical of Aufheben and Libcom's version of events.

bootsy
Offline
Joined: 30-11-09
Oct 11 2017 22:36

Libcom's claim that the initial allegations were untrue and that JD did not author the article Chaos Theory, as TPTG and Samotnaf allege, is not a generally accepted fact. It is based upon JD's claim that his name was added to the article without his consent and that, at the time these allegations were first raised, JD had only participated in researching disaster situations rather than public order policing. However I don't see how anyone could possibly continue to believe this story now that the evidence against JD has become undeniable. It looks pretty obvious that Aufheben's defenders are clinging on to this dubious story as a way of saving face.

What makes this story even more unbelievable is that the "Chaos Theory' article was just one of many similar articles discovered at the time to have JD listed as an author. Thankfully you don't have to take my word for it because the poster "Blasto" compiled this list of all the different evidence that was found soon after the TPTG published their Open Letter.

So, in spite of what some of the Libcom admins are trying to now claim, there was a mountain of evidence of JD's collaboration with the police that was presented to them at the time.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Oct 11 2017 23:04
bootsy wrote:
The text was removed for far longer than would have been necessary to simply redact names and the initial justification from Libcom was not only that the text contained JD's name but also that it contained many lies and blatant "smears".

TPTG or anyone else with an interest in this could have redacted names and reposted the article.

bootsy wrote:
There were no lies in the original open letter though and if anything the TPTG and Samotnaf have been thoroughly vindicated by the more recent information shared in this thread.

JD having done the riots research since 2011 doesn't retrospectively make him the author of Chaos Theory. Either he lied about the authorship, or the original open letter is based on false information.

Again, it would have been possible to get clarification on this before publishing ("did you author this paper?"). Depending on the answer, you could then either accept it, decide that not only did he write the paper but also lied about writing it, or if not sure, use a paper he definitely wrote as the central theme instead - and include that decision and the reasoning for it in the open letter. Or if there was no answer at all, include that you gave x time for comment, got nothing and published anyway. None of these happened, they all would have resulted in a less defensive response from at least some people though, and we wouldn't have had to have waited weeks (months?) for Aufheben's very late and disappointing response post, but could have read them at the same time from day one.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Oct 11 2017 23:11
Fleur wrote:
Hold on, Novara works with Paul Mason, who is pretty pro police & army these days, wouldn't have thought it would be much of an issue for Bastani anyway. ;)

exactly that's what is so opportunistic about it. Bastani was on TV supporting a party with a platform of not only controlling the police by becoming government but adding 10,000 new officers. That is a massive step up from just working with them

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Oct 11 2017 23:25

That was a reply to #466, I hadn't read #477 and crossposted with it but the point stands. Seeking clarification would have allowed the initial open letter to either explicitly state he was lying about authorship on top of having written the articles in the first place, or to have based it on articles whose authorship he admitted. Do you not think either of those situations would have been a better place to start going public?

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Oct 12 2017 07:33

Agreed the way this was initially brought to our attention was somewhat heavy-handed. Nevertheless, the "official" libcom response has been poor. Steven and Mike Harmon are doing their best but others who were on Dr J's defence most seem not to be around now. As for the rest of us, for fuck sake, we're still redacting JD's name, even though we now know for sure he is a copper's nark.

admin: doxxing comment removed

Nymphalis Antiopa
Offline
Joined: 27-12-15
Oct 12 2017 09:39

How dare Serge Forward reveal such a safely-guarded secret! Ban him immediately!

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Oct 12 2017 09:45
Serge Forward wrote:
Agreed the way this was initially brought to our attention was somewhat heavy-handed. Nevertheless, the "official" libcom response has been poor.

Yes, both of those things are true.

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Oct 12 2017 10:34

Is "Johnny" still going to be allowed to post here even after this? He's not banned at present. Banning him would only be a gesture, as he could post under other names as others do, but it's a sanction often been used against others.

bootsy
Offline
Joined: 30-11-09
Oct 12 2017 21:17

Mike Herman:

Quote:
JD having done the riots research since 2011 doesn't retrospectively make him the author of Chaos Theory. Either he lied about the authorship, or the original open letter is based on false information.

How could you possibly continue to believe that he was telling the truth? Like I said, if you look at that list compiled by Blasto and which I provided a link to, its obvious that Chaos Theory is merely one of many articles and projects Dr. Drury was involved with - all of which were either explicitly done in a police advisory capacity or which had obvious utility to the police.

However even without all that extra evidence it still seems pretty obvious to me that his research on the riots does make it more likely that he authored the Chaos Theory article since both are fundamentally similar. If he's willing to do research on the social psychology of the 2011 riots that is of value to the police, then why would he object to being associated with the Chaos Theory stuff?

Even in Johnny's previous post in this thread he's tried to spin a new lie. I mean I get that it can be difficult to accept when someone you trust is blatantly lying to you but its time for the penny to drop here - the only person telling lies, smears and mistruths here is Johnny.

At this point the most important thing is not any personal vendetta against Johnny, although myself I really dislike the guy and probably wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire, but the more important thing is to learn from this and reject any further participation with academic researchers. If any of us really must pursue an academic career then it should be in something as non-political as possible: abstract mathematics, a historical study of your local bowls club, supermassive black holes, dolphin language... you get the point. Academics who wants to participate in protest movements as part of their research should be isolated and excluded in order to avoid another Druryesque scenario...

This is what the TPTG suggested in their first Open Lette and instead of splitting hairs over whether they raised the issue in the appropriate manner or whether Drury truly did author the Chaos Theory article, discussion should have been centred on how to learn from this and develop a counter-strategy. There was a little good discussion about this amongst those who sided with the TPTG but unfortunately it never went anywhere. For me, more important than denouncing Drury is the problem of how we respond to the police tactics he has helped to develop. For that I suppose I should start a new thread though.

bootsy
Offline
Joined: 30-11-09
Oct 12 2017 21:14

As a final point, I'm surprised anyone is still using the term "snitchjacketing" to describe the TPTG's first Open Letter. This should be so obvious it doesn't need saying but apparently it does - its not "snitchjacketing" if the person is actually a snitch.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Oct 12 2017 22:32
bootsy wrote:
As a final point, I'm surprised anyone is still using the term "snitchjacketing" to describe the TPTG's first Open Letter. This should be so obvious it doesn't need saying but apparently it does - its not "snitchjacketing" if the person is actually a snitch.

I don't think anyone has done that. Those of us in the libcom group have only referred to that term with regard to those websites and individuals like Aaron Bastani who accused us of working directly with police. Certainly not the TPTG open letter in any case (if we did consider it snitchjacketing we would not be hosting it on our website).

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Oct 12 2017 23:13

admin: comment complaining about admin decision removed. If you want to complain about admin decisions start a new thread, do not derail existing threads

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Oct 13 2017 11:15
bootsy wrote:
As a final point, I'm surprised anyone is still using the term "snitchjacketing" to describe the TPTG's first Open Letter. This should be so obvious it doesn't need saying but apparently it does - its not "snitchjacketing" if the person is actually a snitch.
Steven wrote:
I don't think anyone has done that. Those of us in the libcom group have only referred to that term with regard to those websites and individuals like Aaron Bastani who accused us of working directly with police. Certainly not the TPTG open letter in any case (if we did consider it snitchjacketing we would not be hosting it on our website).

You're mistaken - see on the 1st page of this thread;

Joseph Kay wrote:
Tbh, if TPTG were made aware of the factual inaccuracies and published anyway, then this is just snitchjacketing plain and simple. That's totally unacceptable conduct. If it's an honest mistake, they still should have contacted Aufheben first before making such serious charges, knowing full well that if you start flinging shit some of it might stick.

Snitchjacketing people you've never met based on poorly understood or simply misrepresented 'evidence' and guilt-by-association smears is absolutely unacceptable. ...

Blasto wrote:
Joseph, your response confirms almost everything I wrote.
JK wrote:
that it's ignorant, dangerous snitchjacketing with no regard for truth? yeah i guess. if you're so concerned with real life, perhaps you should refrain from labelling people guilty as collaborators until proven otherwise, based on bullshit. you're damn right this has real world consequences.

http://libcom.org/forums/feedback-content/why-article-has-been-removed-07102011

In comments 14, 16, 29 & 31 on 1st page of this thread lead Dr J defender JK clearly refers to supposed snitchjacketing of Dr J, not of libcom.

Is JK's personal friendship and loyalty to Dr J still protecting Dr J's presence on here? If not, why hasn't "Johnny" been banned?

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Oct 19 2017 18:41

So "Johnny" is still free to post here with no answer to my earlier questions about that. That pretty much undermines everything else said about this whole issue by admins. The simplest thing they could do to back up their recent claims of reassessing the evidence remains undone. That's pathetic.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Oct 20 2017 08:07

The Johnny account has been blocked.

Everything is a bit slow on our end at the moment (two people almost completely offline this month) so even if we're not the quickest usually, it's even worse than usual, (edit - to be extra clear this means we haven't been able to discuss this as a full group yet at all).

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Oct 20 2017 11:57

Hopefully after full group discussion it'll stay blocked.

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Oct 22 2017 11:40

A description of the £700,000 research project that the news articles were referring to - the reasearchers spell out very clearly their intentions and who are the intended beneficiaries;

Quote:
Beyond contagion: Social identity processes in involuntary social influence
Lead Research Organisation: University of Sussex
Department Name: Sch of Psychology

Funded Value:
£730,440

Principal Investigator:
Dr J

[...]

Planned Impact

In addition to academic beneficiaries, there are two types of stakeholder in this project: government and professional organizations concerned with the spread of violence; and the general public
1. Government and professional organizations concerned with the spread of violence
The issue of the spread of violence is of concern to National and Local Government, to a range of general Government agencies (such as the military and the police) and also to a number of specialist organizations such as Glasgow's Violence Reduction Unit. Our work will be of relevance to such organisations
in two ways. First, we will be in a position to explain the processes governing the spread of violence within particular events and articulate in clear terms how such factors can best be managed to avoid conflict and 'disorder'. Specifically, where we find that 'contagion' cannot explain the spread of conflict and that conflict is better accounted for through a combination of identity-based influence and relations with those in authority - particularly the police - we will point to the ways in which the actions of those in authority may contribute to the spread of violence and hence how they can avoid being a contributory factor. Second, we will provide for a better understanding of the factors which make it more or less likely that violence will spread between events to particular areas and hence allow for improved preparedness should rioting begin elsewhere. Such understandings will be particularly important for local authorities and policing organisations in determining how to invest increasingly limited funds in order to maintain resilience. Overall, we will contribute to a more reflexive approach to collective violence, which does not pathologise those involved from the outset (an approach which, hitherto, has been dominant - see Reicher & Stott, 2011) but rather examines the meaningful types of interaction between authorities and specific communities and how such dynamics may play important roles in the production and avoidance of conflict. We have unprecedented contacts with groups in all of the above-mentioned categories and strong infrastructures underpinning knowledge exchange with policing organisations. Dr J and Reicher are members of government committees dealing with the behaviour of crowds in emergencies; Stott has excellent links with UK and international police agencies, an ESRC national impact award for this work and lectures at police academies across the globe; Reicher lectures regularly to the UK Defence Academy and has worked with the Glasgow Violence Reduction Unit. As detailed in the Pathways to Impact document, we will draw on these links in order to feed our findings into the various agencies to achieve change.
[...]
Our work will therefore contribute towards a more informed discussion of the roots of collective disorder and hence to most effective responses to such disorder: what is the most appropriate balance between responses that prioritise punitive actions towards those who participated and responses that address the underlying causes of participation? A balanced debate clearly depends upon a more balanced understanding of the phenomena themselves. Public discourse will therefore benefit through stimulating and enriched public discussion. In this way, our work is of importance both at the level of individual understanding and of societal well-being.
http://gtr.rcuk.ac.uk/projects?ref=ES%2FN01068X%2F1

[My emph]

GerryK's picture
GerryK
Offline
Joined: 14-04-10
Oct 22 2017 13:50

Just because his name is on this "Beyond contagion: Social identity processes in involuntary social influence" does not mean he wrote it - he just put his name to it to increase his status at the University, as he did with all the other things he never wrote. It is very hard being a professor of crowd psychology - you always have to claim to write things you never wrote - or is it that you always write things and then never claim to have written them? It is all very confusing. But I suggest clarity might come to those who read this if they go back to the beginning of this thread and look at the wonderful defenses of Dr.J by Joseph Kay, Steven and all the other wonderful people at our wonderful libcom who rightly attacked those who claim he wrote things he never did (according to emails that have never been made public) as snitchjacketing and all sorts of other wonderfuly correct and pejorative attributes.

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Nov 16 2017 17:56

http://dialectical-delinquents.com/articles/uncategorised/x/#comment-272276

Scroll down to the last comment if this link somehow doesn't link directly to it.