Many of us dropped him years ago when he nicely offered to grass everyone up after the trafalgar square anti-poll tax shindig.
odd that one of the primary organizers against the poll tax should do this. A link to some evidence would be helpful.
Well, how about him and Steve Nally appearing on both the BBC and ITV news threatening to "name names" in front of millions of viewers. In terms of actual evidence, I think that's pretty fucking damning.
Well, how about him and Steve Nally appearing on both the BBC and ITV news threatening to "name names" in front of millions of viewers. In terms of actual evidence, I think that's pretty fucking damning.
Whats the context here? what were these folks doing? you should know the drill; At least two independant sources. Come on, lets start Linkin'
From http://www.spunk.org/texts/pubs/sa/2/sp001218.txt
"Tommy Sheridan was flown down to appear at the end of the London rally and as the 'leader' of the All Britain Anti Poll Tax Federation was pitched into the controversy surrounding the police attack on demonstrators. Sheridan and Steve Nally, the Militant London activist who was the Secretary of 'the Fed.' were instructed by the Militant leadership, then led by Peter Taffe and the ailing Ted Grant that the riot was a 'godsend' to the Tories and would 'alienate' activists from the anti poll tax movement. The script was that "200 to 250 of these ndividuals intent on causing trouble" had sabotaged the march (Tommy Sheridan BBC 31-3-90).
Urged by the 'consensus conspiracy' that passes for news
coverage, Tommy declared "we condemn it totally" and both he and Nally came out with the statement that "our Federation is going to be conducting an internal inquiry to try and root out the troublemakers" (Sheridan, LWT News 1st April) "...which will go public and if necessary name names" (Nally, ITN 1st April)."
From http://www.spunk.org/texts/pubs/sa/2/sp001218.txt"Tommy Sheridan was flown down to appear at the end of the London rally and as the 'leader' of the All Britain Anti Poll Tax Federation was pitched into the controversy surrounding the police attack on demonstrators. Sheridan and Steve Nally, the Militant London activist who was the Secretary of 'the Fed.' were instructed by the Militant leadership, then led by Peter Taffe and the ailing Ted Grant that the riot was a 'godsend' to the Tories and would 'alienate' activists from the anti poll tax movement. The script was that "200 to 250 of these ndividuals intent on causing trouble" had sabotaged the march (Tommy Sheridan BBC 31-3-90).
Urged by the 'consensus conspiracy' that passes for news
coverage, Tommy declared "we condemn it totally" and both he and Nally came out with the statement that "our Federation is going to be conducting an internal inquiry to try and root out the troublemakers" (Sheridan, LWT News 1st April) "...which will go public and if necessary name names" (Nally, ITN 1st April)."
This is from a site that calls itself "Spunk.Org" for fucks sake
Have we the right to condemn?
by 'Black Sheep'
He has been jailed for refusing to pay fines, arising from the
occupation and vandalising of Sheriff Officers premises.
He has been arrested on numerous occasions, the most recent being
during the attack on the 'Pollok Free State' camp against the M77
by police and Wimpey employees on the 22nd March.
He is the first socialist outwith the Labour Party to achieve
instant public recognition since the days of John McLean, and is
a proven communicator, whether on TV or Radio, or in speaking
with working class people.
He doesn't drink or smoke, his reputation is intact.
So why does he incur such wrath amongst anarchists and other
revolutionaries ?
The answer is simple: the Trafalgar Square Riot.
So, why is the Riot so important to the anarchists and why do
anarchists south of the border know so little of Tommy Sheridan
since that one glorious sunny day 5 years ago?
The story of the riot is well documented in the Acab Press
pamphlet, "Poll Tax Riot, 10 hours that shook Trafalgar
Square". Militant members, the stewards of huge marches that day
in Glasgow and London were appalled at what they saw as the
degeneration of the massive London march, and the media's
spotlight on the battle in the square at the expense of news
featuring 100,000 demonstrating in London and 20,000 in Glasgow.
Tommy Sheridan was flown down to appear at the end of the London
rally and as the 'leader' of the All Britain Anti Poll Tax
Federation was pitched into the controversy surrounding the
police attack on demonstrators. Sheridan and Steve Nally, the
Militant London activist who was the Secretary of 'the Fed.' were
instructed by the Militant leadership, then led by Peter Taffe
and the ailing Ted Grant that the riot was a 'godsend' to the
Tories and would 'alienate' activists from the anti poll tax
movement. The script was that "200 to 250 of these individuals
intent on causing trouble" had sabotaged the march (Tommy
Sheridan BBC 31-3-90).
Urged by the 'consensus conspiracy' that passes for news
coverage, Tommy declared "we condemn it totally" and both he and
Nally came out with the statement that "our Federation is going
to be conducting an internal inquiry to try and root out the
troublemakers" (Sheridan, LWT News 1st April) "...which will go
public and if necessary name names" (Nally, ITN 1st April).
In the months to come there was uproar in the APTF, both at
federation level and in the local Anti-poll tax groups. Dozens of
houses in Hackney and elsewhere were raided by riot police. The
media conducted their populist witch-hunt to identify the
'ringleaders'. Eventually the clamour died down. Instead of
resistance to the poll tax disintegrating it was Thatcher's
government which was rocked and a salutary lesson was learned as
to 'who your friends were'. The so-called internal inquiry never
got beyond the drawing board, such was the level of outrage that
basic solidarity with the marchers attacked by the police,
imprisoned and in some cases jailed, had been breached.
If true; I support Sheridans claims. Don't alienate the mainstream by lobbing bricks through windows. Not rocket science.
A year later Militant Labour was formed in Scotland, most of
their members having been expelled from their beloved Labour
Party. Militant Labour elsewhere took longer to make an impact,
which in Scotland, especially clydeside, was helped by Tommy
Sheridan's second place to Labour in the Parliamentary Election
of 1992, closely followed by his and another victory in the
Pollok ward in the District Elections of the same year.
In Scotland, the media spotlight has continued, as Tommy can
always provide "rent a quote", especially during the protests
against water privatisation and a continued guerrilla war against
the dreaded Sheriff Officers. Recently the attention has dimmed,
especially with the emergence of the eloquent Lynsey Keenan of
Earth First connected to the M77 issue. Outside Glasgow, Scottish
Militant Labour has not made much of an impact with the partial
exception of Dundee, and the political arena is still dominated
by Labour with the Scottish Nationalists trying to muscle in.
Elsewhere in Britain, Militant has not achieved the impact or
benefits from the organisational stranglehold on the late
lamented anti poll tax movement, and they are just another
trotskyite marginalised sect along with the SWP and all the
others, too numerous and unworthy of mention.
Recently in mid February, the Glasgow Anarchists were host to a
visit by 20 comrades from Tyneside, kindred spirits from a
similar working class city: Newcastle. As with previous sorties
by english and welsh anarchists north there is a culture shock,
and this was shown in their reaction to Tommy Sheridan up on the
platform in George Square at the start of the M77/ Criminal
Justice Act Demo. It is hardly surprising that Tommy Sheridan is
viewed in the same light as Nally and the other Militant Labour
leaders. In "10 hours" the quotes taken from videos of the
Trafalgar Sq. riot is followed by the assertion that Militant is
"an organisation that is opposed to the working class fighting
back". This may be true in England & Wales, Scottish anarchists
reserve judgement on this subject. For Scottish Militant, it
simply appears false.
The reason being is that Militant strategy has changed
considerably from their days as an entrist Tendency. It is
certainly true that few anarchists can match the Militant members
from Pollok and elsewhere for their dedication to direct action.
Nor are they disarmed by the ethic of pacifism, with many arrests
associated with 'fighting back' literally, or failing to respect
the property of Sheriff Officers* and their sub-species. Part of
this stems from their recuitment of young people from the housing
schemes and the everyday common sense of direct action if you
have nothing to lose. As mentioned Tommy Sheridan has led by
example, even after elected to the Council, and faced a jail
sentence and countless arrests.
Of course the appeal of direct action to Scottish Militant Labour
has to be understood. There have been examples in history where
Communist Party members took part in such actions, and even the
SWP at times have to show their 'mettle'. The difference is that
Militant now places community struggles at the centre of their
strategy, no longer giving it second billing to workplace
disputes and confrontation is part of the way people can see
through the role of Labourism, as defenders of the status quo.
Even as far as 'controlling' actions, a level of sophistication
appears to have been adopted. The Alliance Against the Criminal
Justice Bill, rechristined the Defiance Alliance is a case in
point. Unlike the front organisation character of the Scottish
SWP's "Coalition", the Alliance involves ravers, animal libbers,
anarchists and - especially Earth First. Such was the
structureless nature of the Alliance, the Scottish Federation of
Anarchists tried to bring up the formal structure of the
organisation at the February Alliance conference. Yes, Militant
are dominant, but such the poor record (outside demonstrations)
of anarchist involvement it could be a case of - by default.
This begs the question. We have a right to be lazy, but have we
revelled in it for too long. Many anarchists drop out because
they've 'done their bit', had their youthful rebellion, got
wasted and waken up to the reality of exploitation from such a
dreamstate, and in the process collective action goes out the
window. We have lacked the sophistication to realise that
politics isn't stuck in a mould, and that we have no right to
patent direct action as our idea. Possibly, of course, Glasgow
Militants are a special case, and the charismatic Tommy has
skills rarely seen in the revolutionary mindset. No doubt, taken
the longer view, old Bakunin will be proved right again. Lenin's
teachings are still followed by Sheridan, down to his assertion
in his recent book that there are working class anarcho-
syndicalists who understand struggles and the majority are an
infantile rabble prone to sectarianism and manipulation by the
State, and he believes all English Anarchists belong to the
latter camp!
Again, Sheridan gets it right here
Our criticism of Militant will only stand up if we** have a
voluntary commitment to meet the dedication that their Party
demands. Anarchist strategy and organisation will have to develop
- the formation of the Scottish Federation of Anarchists is a
small step, but isn't enough. Questions will have to answered
about who anarchism appeals to, why, and why we let ourselves be
marginalised or out manoeuvred time & time again, by the State
and by statist revolutionaries. Let's put aside the nonsensical
assessment that Sheridan is scarred for life due to Trafalgar
Square, respect his and Glasgow Militant's commitment to direct
action, match it by our own and, after eating some 'humble pie',
rediscover a purpose beyond 'playing hard to get' away from the
theatre of demonstrations.
* Baliffs south of the border
** This criticism may apply to Glasgow Anarchists more than some
of their English counterparts!
I dont see much in this article that condemns Sheridan even if its written from an english anarchyist standpoint.
Even with this article alone I'll say Sheridan was right to distance himself from the brickthrowers and to blast english anArKIsts as bein a bunch of irrelevant tossers
Quote:
then you should support the workers. plain and simple.does this mean that ive got to support any and all workers,like the nazi concentration guards,they were empolyed by someone,the agents of the state,indeed all the workers that enable the repressive state to exist.there is such a thing as individual responsiblity,and i for one will not support those that abuse,and repress others,whether they be bosses or workers in the employ of these bosses.as for the workers invovled in the ssp/solidarity thing,how do you know that they are'nt colluding,with their ssp bosses,and using the nuj/iww.
Are you seriously saying that the parliamentary workers in dispute here are like nazi concentration camp guards. How are these workers abusing and repressing others, or enabling the repressive state to exist? They are simply trying to get their conditions of employment upheld.
Even with this article alone I'll say Sheridan was right to distance himself from the brickthrowers and to blast english anArKIsts as bein a bunch of irrelevant tossers
So you are assuming that all those fighting on that day were anarchists? Sorry pal, that's not true. It was a typical riot with all sorts of people caught up in it. Any socialist worth their salt would not offer to provide the police with evidence. Anything else he's done is besides the point. It does not change the fact that on that day he acted as a scab. and a grass.
Quote:
Even with this article alone I'll say Sheridan was right to distance himself from the brickthrowers and to blast english anArKIsts as bein a bunch of irrelevant tossersSo you are assuming that all those fighting on that day were anarchists? Sorry pal, that's not true. It was a typical riot with all sorts of people caught up in it. Any socialist worth their salt would not offer to provide the police with evidence. Anything else he's done is besides the point. It does not change the fact that on that day he acted as a scab. and a grass.
Calling the police when yobs smash things up is what NORMAL people do. Get used to it. This is why Sheridan has support among NORMAL people. Ken livingston; that well-known right-wing fascist dictator has also said that he will come down like a ton of bricks on anyone vandalising peoples property during a demo; something that NORMAL people support; this may explain why he's the mayor.
I had to chase of a bunch of yobs from our apt. block who had kicked in our door. My neighbour, a frail old woman, had called the police. Was she a fucking grass too? For fucks sake.
Quote:
eir conditions of Are you seriously saying that the parliamentary workers in dispute here are like nazi concentration camp guards. How are these workers abusing and repressing others, or enabling the repressive state to exist
? They are simply trying to get themployment upheld
.
i was answering ftonys quote,these workers have been offered empolyment,and have refused this offer.things are never plain and simple,there are many workers in the world i would not support,i.e a party worker for the BNP.to state that because someone is employed ,and thus a worker,that you should automatically support them is crap.
i was answering ftonys quote
by suggesting that Concentration Camp workers and workers who support the repressive state should not be supported when they struggle against their employer? Maybe if there had been a bit *more* support for CC guards who were struggling against the nazi regime there wouldnt have been 10 million dead.
,these workers have been offered empolyment,and have refused this offer.
But they were already employed...thats the whole point of this that they want their current rights upheld and according to the NUJ statement there was no TU negotiation, nor formal offer put to the workers
things are never plain and simple,there are many workers in the world i would not support,i.e a party worker for the BNP.to state that because someone is employed ,and thus a worker,that you should automatically support them is crap.
Really - you would support the British National Party as an employer over an individual who worked for them in an industrial dispute.
I'm getting a bit confused over which "Solidarity" you're from mate. Is it this one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_%28Scotland%29
or this one...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_%E2%80%93_The_Union_for_British_Workers
Maybe if there had been a bit *more* support for CC guards who were struggling against the nazi regime there wouldnt have been 10 million dead.
Dunno mate, not sure I'd support a pay struggle amongst concentration camp guards. At that point, I think I'd have to just say "sorry comrades, but go fuck yourselves"!
That said, the Builder and Odd's posts are a little frustrating to read. I mean, for fucks sake mate....
Calling the police when yobs smash things up is what NORMAL people do. Get used to it. This is why Sheridan has support among NORMAL people [...]I had to chase of a bunch of yobs from our apt. block who had kicked in our door. My neighbour, a frail old woman, had called the police. Was she a fucking grass too? For fucks sake.
This is mental for a couple of reasons:
1) Are you honestly comparing large groups of working class people rioting against an unfair tax with a bunch of fucking hoods trying to kick someone's door in? You don't see any difference in the content or aim of their actions? Of course the old lady called the police, she felt under threat. Even if you'd called the police for her it would be fair enough coz these kids are obviously anti-social pricks. That's not the same as giving the names of people involved in working class struggle to the police!
2) The idea that whatever 'normal' people think is what we must think is ridiculous. Where I grew up, it's normal to call women 'gash', hate gays and vote Labour. Most 'normal' people aren't socialists. If all radicals do is parrot whatever the 'normal' line is, then how is progress ever made? Sorry mate, but its not 'my class, right or wrong'. One of the main things any socialist can do is encourage debate amongst our class and try to develop the socialist tendencies that ARE existant in society, while rejecting the shit that comes with being 'normal'. I'm sure in practice you have far more conviction in your politics than this but if this was how you acted out your politics then you'd not be a socialist. You'd be an opportunist.
Sheridan was a grass and now he's fucking over some of his staff. Sure, he might have done some good organising in his day but that doesn't (or shouldn't) give him any special privileges in working class communities. If anything, it gives him a reputation he has to live up to, or else he's just a treacherous little shit.
silvermoon wrote:
Maybe if there had been a bit *more* support for CC guards who were struggling against the nazi regime there wouldnt have been 10 million dead.Dunno mate, not sure I'd support a pay struggle amongst concentration camp guards. At that point, I think I'd have to just say "sorry comrades, but go fuck yourselves"!
I suspect there were probably more pressing workers rights issues there than pay ...such as the right not to get shot if you didnt obey orders.
This is mental for a couple of reasons:
1) Are you honestly comparing large groups of working class people rioting against an unfair tax with a bunch of fucking hoods trying to kick someone's door in? You don't see any difference in the content or aim of their actions? Of course the old lady called the police, she felt under threat. Even if you'd called the police for her it would be fair enough coz these kids are obviously anti-social pricks. That's not the same as giving the names of people involved in working class struggle to the police!
There was only one Objective; Destroy the Poll Tax and the Thatcher Govt. with it. Everything else was irrelevant. No rioting was necessary. No giving-the-Class-Enemy-propaganda-ammunition was necessary.
Shooting the ammo-suppliers of the Enemy would have been justifiable.
All we had to do was show up In Huge numbers. Thats it.
You know what I think? those "working-class" rioters were agents provocateurs installed by the regime.
2) The idea that whatever 'normal' people think is what we must think is ridiculous. Where I grew up, it's normal to call women 'gash', hate gays and vote Labour. Most 'normal' people aren't socialists. If all radicals do is parrot whatever the 'normal' line is, then how is progress ever made?
Sorry mate, but its not 'my class, right or wrong'.
In A State Of Class War thats EXACTLY what it fucking is!
One of the main things any socialist can do is encourage debate amongst our class and try to develop the socialist tendencies that ARE existant in society, while rejecting the shit that comes with being 'normal'. I'm sure in practice you have far more conviction in your politics than this but if this was how you acted out your politics then you'd not be a socialist. You'd be an opportunist.
I dont deny using any opportunity to fuck over my class-enemy; maybe you should adopt the same approach
Sheridan was a grass and now he's fucking over some of his staff. Sure, he might have done some good organising in his day but that doesn't (or shouldn't) give him any special privileges in working class communities.
YES IT DOES. We gave medals and pensions to the Resistance not the fn collaborators
If anything, it gives him a reputation he has to live up to, or else he's just a treacherous little shit.
Apoplectic Outrage. This of a Distinguished Serviceman of the Class War.
Sorry Builder, but this really is so much drivel that I really can't be arsed to argue the toss.
Wow.....Is this guy for real?
Either that, or it's a very good piss take... of what, I'm not entirely sure.
Sorry Builder, but this really is so much drivel that I really can't be arsed to argue the toss.
Which is one of the reasons you will not be an effective Class Warrior
If Sheridan was right to threaten to "name names", why did Militant subsequently try to heap all the blame on the far less charismatic Nally and back down from this positino completely? Probably because their "respectable left" position backfired, both within the anti-poll tax campaign and in the wider working class.
For sure some people were put off by the violence, but plenty of others saw it for what it was, a large demo of angry people kicking off after heavy handed policing. You don't need ot have any political experience to know that this happens. It used to happen all the time at football matches, one of the reasons the game was gentrified. Militant thought that the riot would put off "respectable" working class people. On balance, they were wrong, and groups like the Trafalgar Square Defendents Campaign were set up, by the affected people, in part because they felt they couldn't trust a national federation whose spokesmen had already decided to accept the police's version of events.
The campaign against the poll tax had great potential - had Major's govt not scrapped it (and it was the last major victory we had) the habit of not paying bills and taxes could have got even more ingrained.
BTW Builder, who is your class enemy? It's kind of hard to tell where you are coming from.
Regards,
Martin
Which is one of the reasons you will not be an effective Class Warrior
Yeah right. Maybe if I spent more time trolling forums and talking shite, that'd do the trick?
why do some of you always get personnal?
Shredding someone's employment contract because they wound up on the wrong side of a political split sounds awefully personal to me. As has been pointed out by numerous fellow wobblies on this board I don't really care about Sherridan's working class cred, the IWW is standing up for its members against an unfair firing, and none of what you have posted has convinced me otherwise. In fact everything you have posted seems to imply that Sheridan has the right to do what he did and employment contracts simply don't apply to the working class leadership. Looks to me like the IWW is doing what is supposed to do, stand up for its members.
As for asking if this guy was for real I was serious, on occasion we do have posters on here that like to set up fake accounts and parody various political outlooks. I thought The Builder could very well be one, if he doesn't want people to ask if he's some tired characiture maybe he try not to post phrases like:
Which is one of the reasons you will not be an effective Class Warrior
I think the Builder reflects the views of a certain type of conservative leftism - maybe he's an ex-member of Militant or something. The miners and printworkers rioted and fought the cops on picket lines before they were defeated - some of them, a few years later, got a little revenge against the Met in Trafalgar Sq. Iirc, one or two ex-miners were defendants in the subsequent trials. But maybe miners and printworkers aren't 'normal' enough for the Builder, maybe only people who can be easily manipulated by 'public opinion', the media and self-appointed working class leaders/grasses are truly 'normal'. Which is why the working class need to become extra-ordinary by fighting back, refusing leftist (and all other political) representation and just maybe making a revolution...
Assuming he isn't a troll (and also so that lurkers on here can read some sort of rebuttal):
There was only one Objective; Destroy the Poll Tax and the Thatcher Govt. with it.
Yeah and we got Major and council tax instead. Whoop de fuckin doo.
Everything else was irrelevant.
So council tax is "irrelevant" then?
No rioting was necessary. No giving-the-Class-Enemy-propaganda-ammunition was necessary.
You really think that the "class enemy" (which I'm guessing means the media and government) need rioting to get ammunition? You really think they wouldn't undermine and dismiss any movement that edges towards class struggle? Jesus, look at the coverage of the French CPE movement, the public sector strike this year, the posties' wildcats etc etc. We're gonna get misrepresented by the forces we're trying to overthrow whatever we do.
All we had to do was show up In Huge numbers. Thats it.
Cos that worked with the anti-war movement?
You know what I think? those "working-class" rioters were agents provocateurs installed by the regime.
OK that's it, lay off the crack Tyrone.
Sorry mate, but its not 'my class, right or wrong'.In A State Of Class War thats EXACTLY what it fucking is!
I'd possibly quibble how Ed phrased it, but you're wrong. You really have to distinguish between supporting the interests of your class and supporting various fleeting political dynamics within it. Even you concede that by attacking the rioters! (Oh no wait, they're agent provocateurs...riiight.)
those "working-class" rioters were agents provocateurs installed by the regime.
this thread really is getting more and more bizarre every time i read it.
on a much more positive note, we've got 'em by the short n curlies. it's really becoming incredibly embarassing for Solidarity - the vast majority of the coverage of the dispute is in the workers' favour and the image of two leading 'socialists' screwing over their own workers is increasingly recognised as utterly absurd.
please do keep up the support.
victory to the scottish parliamentary workers
hi ftony,you wrote that "we've got them by the short n curlies" would you care to expand on this.
Hi guy,i'd prefer to judge people on what they've done for the working class/socialism,not on what they have offered to do.
Hi guy,i'd prefer to judge people on what they've done for the working class/socialism,not on what they have offered to do.
You mean like disregarding employment contracts?
they were offered employment,they refused,why i don't know,but surely working for one socialist is the same as working for any other.
does no-one else think that this whole dispute exposes just how ridiculous the IWW was to admit the Scottish parliament workers in the first place? Here's a group entirely comprised of Trots (ie. members of a political tendency that is overtly critical of syndicalism), joining the wobs for the purposes of kitsch.
And here you are pursuing a dispute between two different sets of Trots, over the "rights" of the full-timers of two political parties.
More brief notes, quotes and interviews from inside the current uprising in Turkey from Istanbul.
An analysis of a major 1970s highpoint of class struggle in the UK; its character, implications and consequences.
The Adventures of Tintin: Breaking Free is an anarchist parody of the popular Tintin series of comics. An exercise in detournement, the book was written under the pseudonym J. Daniels.
Please read the posting guidelines before posting. If you see anything which falls outside them please use the 'report' button on the offending post to flag it for the moderators' attention. Site admins are listed here, and feedback can be posted in the feedback forum.
Click here to register now. Logged in users:
Can comment on articles and discussions
Get 'recent posts' refreshed more regularly
Bookmark articles to your own reading list
Use the site private messaging system
Start forum discussions, submit articles, and more...
That aside, this dispute is not about personalities, and what you or I think of Mr Sheridan's credentials is neither here nor there. The issue is, he's stitched up his employees who happen to be either NUJ or IWW members. The workers are not bloody happy with this. So what do we do? Support the employer or the employees? It ain't rocket science, is it!