Putting the record straight

Maybe, but there's still a huge amount of disinformation about me circulating on the net, some of it on this very site.

My reputation has been trashed as a result.

Tacks

I've read the whole post now and it would see O'Hara's work was callous in the extreme.

I certainly don't think everyone who ever worked with and even for searchlight are 100% suspect either.

I know many good people who have done stuff for Searchlight. That doesn't make them all state informants or plants.

Tacks

It's problematic cos as you say lbernstein, the main thrust of SLFB is correct; gable is a state informant, SL is dodgy etc. but the individual parts of the picture are sketchy.

I have no idea if Gable is a state informant or not. I know what's been claimed. I also, as I said above, have not read any of O'Hara's book, except the page about me, so I can't say if the thrust is right or not. But I'm wiiling to take your word for it.

Tacks

O'Hara has an online presence on meanwhileatthebar.org and urban75.com - i don't think he regularly posts here. I'm not sure a protacted public eachange would bring you much closure. perhaps open the private channel of communication that you initially rejected? In your shoes the best thing would be for O'Hara to issue a retarction of his claim and then have it taken out of online versions etc. I think you'd only get that if you wrote to him privately cos people never own up to being wrong like this publically.

I've no interest in contacting O'Hara at all. If I had, I would have replied when he first wrote to me in Paris, or certainly after the book was published. When his book came out, I was already trying to put my political past behind me, as well as Leo's death. I had no interest in raking it up again, especually as I have a moral duty of care to Leo's family, who I have done my utmost to protect from all the muckraking.

A retraction would be great, but I;m not holding my breath. I only want to set the record straight. The problem is, though, it's very hard to prove you are not an agent of the state...

Jason Cortez

of the people i know who knew you both the few conservations mentioning either of you have always been friendly, even affectionate, and unsurpisingly tinged with sadness. Maybe it time for closure through listening to each other without trying to prove who's right on every detail. This obviviously is not directed to Larry.

Thanks for your kind words - you cannot know how much it means to me to read them.

Tacks

lbernstein - i'm fairly sure that this topic posted elsewhere would do anything but put the past behind you i'm afraid. It may actually lead to you having to argue about it with O'Hara anyway - this is a public forum, and one he takes an interest in.

I think that if claims are wrong and damaging, it should be possible to get them retarcted and apologised for. No need for legal battles. If you have never had any contact with O'Hara, you don't know what he might say. Also, you just offered to show everybody who read the original post your medical records and police documents; if you are willing to do that, surely that indicates some appetite for taking this further and gaining some resolution...?

I'm not interested in a legal battle - I have neither the money or the stomach for it. I only posted on here in the first place as I decided, out of curiosity to do a google search on Leo, and was rather surprised to see what pages came up! This is a public forum, as you say, and as such it's given me the first opportunity in 16 years to try and clear my name. An apology and retraction from O'Hara would be very nice indeed, but I'm not going to beg him for it. If he does read this forum, maybe he'll be man enough to admit he was wrong and has caused me harm and emotional pain.

I do have all the documents concerning Leo's death - the file is a couple of inches thick and contains the coroner's report, the legal correspondence, police statements, hospital statements etc. I'm quite willing to go into full detail of exactly what happened in the 24 hours leading up to Leo's death, and I'm happy to go into it here, so there can be no doubt in anyone's mind about the facts. His parents were with me that day, for the entire time.

And yes, I have several years' worth of medical records (in Dutch) concerning my treatment for ME, as well, which I have thankfully now recovered from.

revol68

Well from experiance of him on Urban he's just another conspiraloon, he might have got it right once but even then the issues raised on this thread would suggest he's quite liberal with the "TRUTH!!11!!".

Frankly, I don't care if O'Hara is nuts or a "conspiraloon" or whatever.

What I care about is clearing my name. You know, I could have written back to O'Hara when he first wrote to me c/o of Reflexes, but I didn't, for reasons explained in my first post. I'd never heard of him, had no idea who he was and his letter came across as paranoid. My ex-husband and I together decided to bin the letter. By the time O'Hara's book was published, I'd not only left Paris, but also left United in Amsterdam and had pretty much jacked in activism. If I recall correctly, I was alerted to the page about me around the time I was being tested for ME and I was also awaiting a diagnosis for something else, which means I'm now disabled. So my health was another good reason for not pursuing O'Hara at that time.

O'Hara could easily have contacted me via United, even though I'd left - they would have passed the letter on, given that I was at the time living right around the corner from the United office. He could have said "I'm writing a book and I'm curious about your role in Searchlight. Do you want to talk to me? Do you have any comment to make?" But he didn't - he just wrote about me without bothering to check his facts - with me, Leo's family, or anyone else connected to that whole period of my life in London, Paris or Amsterdam. That's pretty poor research, by my standards.

Fair comment, Steven. I wouldn't expect anyone who didn't know me or the circumstances I was in at the time to be aware of any controversy. But it's frightening how fast disinformation about people can travel round. I have firsthand experience of this. Not long after I quit working at United, I came home to London for a visit with my partner. I wanted to go to 121 Bookshop and catch up with people I used to work with there (I worked at 121 Bookshop the whole time I was based in London - helping run the shop, doing the Squatter's Advice session every Sunday etc). So we turned up and the two people I'd hoped to see were not there. But some other people I knew reasonably well from the antifa movement were there, ditto some anarchist acquaintances, including others I'd done shifts with at 121. I was told very bluntly that I couldn't wait there to see if my friends showed up and it was made very clear that my presence was not welcome. I could see that they were literally very edgy at my being there. As this was not very long after O'Hara's book was published, I can only assume that was why I was asked to leave by people I would have expected to be friendly to me or at least give me the benefit of the doubt. I remember leaving 121 with my face burning with embarrassment and fear, wondering what people were saying about me once I'd gone and wondering what other untruths were circulating about me.

My beliefs in anarchism have not changed over the years but the damage O'Hara has done to my reputation as an alleged agent of the state means I can never be active again in the anarchist movement. Who would trust me?

As others have said, O'Hara does read this site, so I think people can safely assume he's read this thread - it's been up here 10 days already. I've already asked him to be man enough to admit he was wrong - his silence speaks for itself.

I have posted my first post from the top of this thread as a comment to O'Hara's article.

LARRY O'HARA

This thread has just been drawn to my attention.

I notice that Louse Bernstein

1) admits extensive dealings with Searchlight over a number of years: and note she is careful to reveal little more than I have already placed in the public domain.

That's because there is little to reveal. One phone call to Tony Robson to ask him to tip off AFA that some French Blood &Honour skins were on their way to Kent. One phone call from Tony to say thank you. A couple more phone calls from Steve Silver over a period of several months to the Reflexes office, where he often spoke to other people rather than me, to exchange information. One (one!) call from Gable to ask if Reflexes would do a magazine column swap. Some contact with Graeme Atkinson because he was European editor. And one meeting at which Gable avoided me like the plague - I was never once alone with him that weekend, a fact that was commented on by several people to my face along the lines of "have you done anything to upset Gerry?" to which I replied "I've no idea".

2) Invites people to contact Gable to confirm her version of her allegiances & events: the incongruity of that, and what it signifies, I'll leave you all to work out.

Er no, I didn't invite anyone to contact Gable. I said "if they ask him". IF. I myself have had no contact with Gable since 1994.

3) Refers to how 'nice' Graham Atkinson of Searchlight is--those who have read Searchlight Fiction Pulped will remember just what a nasty specimen he is.

I didn't call him nice - I said decent and genuine. That was my personal impression of him and remains so. He was always very polite, kind and respectful to me. If there are other sides to him I never saw them. And I'm unable to comment on anything in Searchlight Fiction Pulped because I've never read it and didn't know it existed until I just read this thread. That doesn't mean whatever it contains may not be true. It may well for all know. I can only say of Graeme what I saw of him.

4) Does not explain in the slightest how somebody who one would have thought knew all about Searchlight ends up parroting their 'analysis' and providing an entree for them into anarchist circles in France.

I have already said that Hate on the Internet was my own research. I quote from a number of sources, including Searchlight. Most of my resources were academic researchers and antifa groups in various European countries.

As for the latter comment - Reflexes was not an anarchist magazine. Some of the editorial committee were anarchists. About half were not. As far as I'm aware, Searchlight's only contact in France was me. I never introduced anyone from Searchlight to anyone else in France. And something you don't know is that about three years before I made that call to Tony Robson, five members of Reflexes had made a visit to London with the specific intention of making contact with Searchlight themselves. I met them on that visit for the very first time, so I could hardly have had a hand in that. And I gather that they attempted to make contact several times over the next few years, with no success. No doubt that fact that I am British and speak fluent English was why I was asked to ring Tony with the tip-off.

5) Further admits I wrote to her--a letter which she binned & didn't reply to, but utters abusive remarks concerning. For her to then whine about why I didn't contact her again is preposterous--her friends at Searchlight never contacted me before printing incessant lies about me in 25 issues of the magazine & elsewhere.

Why would I deny receiving a letter from you? Like any political mag, Reflexes got its share of dubious correspondence, all of which had to be considered carefully before deciding to reply or ignore. In your case, we decided to ignore. Apologies for slagging off your typing and spelling, even though your letter WAS badly written. [EDITED TO ADD] There was nothing in your letter that gave us any reason to take it seriously. We'd never heard of you, it was on unheaded paper (therefore indicating it was from an unknown individual rather than an academic source or known publication), and it was a two-page incoherent ramble warning us about Gable. Who we were already wary of. [END OF EDIT]

And you could have contacted me again - I'd have answered your questions if you'd asked. It's not my fault, incidentally, if Searchlight didn't contact you - I'm not now nor ever have been responsible for what they publish.

6) Has a dig at a dead man, Meltzer: whose 'suspicions' I merely reproduced

Albert was pretty horrible to me on the last occasion I saw him. That's the truth, not a dig. Despite his nastiness, I continued to respect him and his views. I was unaware he had written his autobiography until I saw the quote in your pages. At which point, I bought a copy. I was surprised how little he actually wrote about Leo - given the amount of time they had spent together over 9 years and the amount they had done, I'd have thought my lover would merited more than a page and a half. Some of what Albert wrote is inaccurate, for example saying he'd been living with his parents before moving in with his girlfriend (ie, me). Untrue. Leo had moved out of his parents years before we even met.

The sentence before your quote says "He [Leo] said reasonably that, while he could not understand healthy people committing suicide, when someone reached a certain state of deterioration they should be able to die as they wished." This is absolutely what Leo believed, as do I. His parents and I have always believed that Leo chose to commit suicide rather than be locked into a psychiatric ward against his wishes. As a freedom fighter, dying by his own hand was undoubtedly preferable. The inquest report raises a massive number of questions about the way that ward was run and gaps in his care (for example, the doctor deciding to put him under observation but the nursing staff not apparently being informed of this). The inquest verdict was open but only because for suicide to be ruled there has to be incontrovertible proof of the intention to kill oneself, such as telling someone or leaving a note, neither of which Leo had done. However, the coroner made it clear in his summary that he thought it was probably suicide.

Going back to Meltzer, don't you think I'd love to be able to ask him questions?

7) Ludicrously claims only to have read the relevant part of SFB on her--thereby evading dealing with the rest of it, which cites chapter & verse on Searchlight continually doing the work of SB & undermining/smearing anarchists. A standard tactic of Searchlight apologists: always evading the issue.

I have read only the pages that were faxed to me when your book was published. I have since skimmed the text that is reproduced on this website, but as I'm no longer involved with Searchlight (and have not been since early 1996 when I resigned from United), nor any other active politics I'm really not that interested except in a passing manner.

If lib.com wants to accept the word of a Searchlight apologist like Bernstein, they are free to. I contend (and the evidence proves it) hers was no mere casual association--and she was (is) somebody who should have known better. I asked questions in SFB: not adequately answered here, and also quoted Albert Meltzer's views in a book. Should I hold a seance & get Albert to retract? I could raise emotive matters, like LB, vconcerning the depths to which Searchlight harassment of myself has sunk, but why should I? That would cloud the issues.

Just where is your concrete proof, Larry? All you have are theories and speculation. Let's see your "evidence". You're right I should have known better, but as I already said France at the time was in the grip of the rise of the extreme right and at Reflexes our priority was to fight that by any means possible. If I'd known that swapping magazine columns and having a few phone calls would have caused me such massive personal hassle years later, I'd never have bothered. I've already admitted I was naive. And I'm still paying for it.

Steven.

Meltzer may have been a very good guy, he certainly seems like a great one from personal testimonies and Golden Angels, but to say every word he spoke must've been true is silly.

I have been told through the grapevine that a number of people close to Albert told him they thought his theory was "wild speculation".

So you're not providing any evidence any of what you say is actually true then, and are going to maintain your insunuation that she played a role in her partner's death? that sounds pretty stupid.

I'd like to see this evidence too!

This isn't just about what albert said, you're saying she's a state agent.

And tbh if she really was would she really be posting on here nearly 20 years later, obviously upset by it? What motive would the "secret state" have for doing that? to try to get her to re-infiltrate some group? (and which one??)

Why indeed? It's almost 17 years since Leo died. I've been out of active politics since I resigned from United in January 1996. That's 11 years. Even if I wanted to be active again, I doubt anyone would trust me after what's been said about me, so I wouldn't be able to.

LARRY O'HARA

Ah, I get it--LB is allowed to post reams about her personal problems (nothing to do with me) but I am not allowed to talk about harassment by her Searchlight friends. Thanks for clarifying.

What personal problems? Reams? I have briefly mentioned my grief and a suicide attempt I made 3 months after Leo died.

Larry, if Searchlight have harrassed you, and I have no reason to disbelieve you, that's not my fault. I'm sad if that's the case, but they have done it to others, including Malcolm of Doncaster DAM, which everyone knew, including me was an utter lie. They are not now or ever have been "friends" of mine, except the personal friendship I had with Graeme Atkinson, who was very supportive of me when my French marriage broke up and to whom I offered personal support when his relationship ended. This is usually called offering a shoulder to cry on. But I would not describe Searchlight as my friends - I've already detailed the precise nature of the relationship. I can't offer any more info because there is none to offer.

LARRY O'HARA

I note your response with interest

1) You give an account of your dealings with Searchlight, but nowhere do you explain away what first perturbed me--how could an anarchist, and ex-Black Flag member, suggest any genuine anti-fascists work with Searchlight. That, of course, was the central issue raised in my letter that you say you binned so peremptorily. You just do not answer that point, my central question. And as Searchlight For Beginners cites, you actually parroted Searchlight's 'analysis' in a book published in French--something Leo Rosser never did, nor would have done.

Buy you didn't know we'd binned your letter until I said so on here. Up until then, all you knew was that you didn't get a reply from anyone at Reflexes. I did not "parrot" Searchlight's analysis in my article. I quoted them, as I did others. Am I not allowed to reach my own conclusions or be capable of making them? I spent hundreds of hours in that period researching neo-nazi BB boards, the URLs of which were given to me by non-Searchlight sources.

What Leo did and what I did are two different things. I've already said we were not joined at the hip and didn't agree on everything politically.

2) You claim naivety--but I do you the credit as an ex-Black Flag member of being more politically sophisticated than that.

Sorry but I wasn't nearly as politically sophisticated as other members of Black Flag. I wrote very little for it. My main tasks at BF were collecting the post from the BM box, typing up articles, helping with layout etc. About 95% of what I did at BF was admin. I didn't feel confident enough to write much. Most of what I did write was short news snippets and book reviews. I don;t recall writing any major investigative features.

3) That Reflex had apparently being trying to contacxt Searchlight & had failed till you facilitated such is hardly to your credit.

Leo warned the Reflexes people about Searchlight when they visited London. When I moved to Paris, I was asked several times to make contact with Searchlight but didn't want to. It was only when we had the tip-off about the skins going to Dover that I rang Searchlight to pass it on. I would have rung AFA if I'd had a reliable contact number but I didn't. I agree it's not to my credit and as I have said several times, I wish I hadn't and I would never have done if I'd known how mich aggro it would create years later.

4) You are perfectly entitled to have binned my letter. But given
a) it raised questions about Searchlight and the need for non-state compromised anti-fascists to avoid these spooks like the plague
b) You were in contact with Searchlight at the time
--that is again something that reflects badly on you, in my view.
To criticise me for not having contacted you a second time is ludicrous. Am I supposed to be psychic, & waste my time sending letters to people who bin them? I again repeat, this Atkinson creature who you find "genuine" is a low-life Stalinist smear-peddler.

4a) see my comments in answer to part 1 as to why we binned your letter. And we were, as I have also stated, aware of the need to be cautious where Searchlight was concerned.

4b) I never discussed Atkinson's political views beyond fighting fascism with him. I was aware that he leaned to communism, which kind I never asked. You didn't need to be psychic Larry - you knew I was working at United - all contact details were in the public domain.

5) So, you have 'skimmed the text'--given it is on this site, I find it difficult to believe you haven't read it. I will leave others to decide how likely that is. Amazing, that you affect to remember the gist of a letter that was binned straight away, but other important written material (or political memories) are blank to you. I again reiterate, Searchlight/state operations against Black Flag are included in Searchlight For Beginners. I again ask those observing this exchange to think how plausible is it that a key Black Flag collective member should develop such politcal amnesia in so short a space of time as you seem to want us to think you did.

Skimmed yes because the little time I have spent on here has been spent posting in this thread. Outside of that I have a living to earn. Which remains me, I really ought to go and do some paid work so I can cover my bills. I was not a key BF member. I was at the bottom of the heap there. See above. I repeat again that while at Reflexes I was well aware of the need for caution at all times in dealing in Searchlight. How is that amnesia?

6) Claims that you are now not involved in politics are fair enough--but my pamphlet raised questions about your sudden political amnesia then that have still not been adequately answered.

See last sentence by me above.

LARRY O'HARA

you only claim to have read two pages of SFB: that would include the footnote numbered 59 citing your article in the book 'L'Europe en chemise brune' (1992) which praised Searchlight's 'From Ballots to Bombs' as "excellent". That, as you well know, is something different entirely than the internet article. And it does parrot Searchlight's analysis of the UK far right, as you well know. Or are we asked to believe Searchlight secretly inserted their characteristic take on events while it was in the printers & you never noticed? How is that to be explained away?

Yes, I wrote a chapter in English for L'Europe en Chemise Brune too. I've never denied that. It does not parrot Searchlight's analysis - if you look at the bibliography you can clearly see I I referenced a number of sources - Robert Benewick, Joe Jacobs, FL Carsten, Christopher Husbands, Richard Thurlow and Martin Walker. Are you suggesting that all my other sources were parroting Searchlight too? Incidentally, I wrote the article in English because although my spoken FRench is very good, my written French is not good enough to write at that level. Someone at Reflexes translated my article, probably my ex. You are right that the footnote says I described From Ballots to Bombs as "excellent" in French. I cannot confirm if that is what I wrote in the original English version as the files are at Reflexes, not with me. And there was some very good information in that publication. Just not all of it.

Members of a group do not need to write for it to be aware of the political line on key issues of the day. So I don't buy that evasion either.

Very true. Which is why I have repeatedly stated that I did not share all of Leo's political views, nor indeed all of BF's line. I have already stated elsewhere in this thread that I thought BF was obsessed with the secret state. I was not.

Now we have a variation that you didn't want to contact Searchlight--but of course you did!

It's not a variation. It's an addition. I've never denied I picked up the phone and rang Searchlight. I was asked to pass on the tip. I didn't have a number for AFA so I rang Searchlight instead. And I was asked because I was the only member of Reflexes who spoke fluent English. That doesn't mean I was happy to do it. I was put under some pressure. And I have repeatedly stated that I was cautious.

If you were aware of the need to be cautious, why have dealings with them? Just doesn't add up, at all.

Because we had a tip to pass on.

Again you ludicrously imply I should have wasted my time contacting you a second time--when you never responded to me once. Ridiculous.

But you were quite happy to make serious implications about me without checking your facts. As a journalist, your first rule should surely be to talk to people involved in whatever you are writing about. Especially if you intend to make allegations. You wouldn't have been wasting your time, you would have been checking your story stood up to scrutiny. Which it doesn't. I've yet to see any concrete evidence supplied by you that a) I am a state agent or asset, b) that I was Gable's "lackey" and c) that I had any hand in Leo's death. When you provide some, maybe others will take you seriously. Because they are not at the moment.

It is amnesia because if you were aware of the need for caution, that should have precluded contact. It is the equivalent of saying 'I knew Special Branch were dodgy, but I was aware of the need for caution & to be wary of them'. Acceptable for an apolitical punter, but not for somebody who has (past?) professed anarchist politics. You speak of discussing personal matters (two-way) with a key member of the Searchlight team, Atkinson. The level of trust required in any normal situation to do that would imply a far greater connection with Searchlight (even if only in the form of Atkinson) than you have disclosed.

There's nothing wrong with my memory. I do not have amnesia. Would you like me to get checked out by a neurologist of your choice? I'll happily sit a polygraph test too.

We all do things against our better judgement. I made an error of judgement in opening up contact with Searchlight. For which I am still paying. But it seemed the right thing to do at the time because we had info that needed to be passed on.

Re talking to Atkinson about our relationships, yes I felt he was enough of a friend to tell him why my marriage broke up. I spent longer listening to him when his relationship ended - he was deeply upset. I'd like to think I am a compassionate person who takes time to help people when they have personal troubles. In fact, I know I am. I have many friends who confide personal stuff in me. And it stays private. I'm not a gossip.

Still not adequately answered. And I, too, have lots better to do with my time than respond on this thread. The two recent posters apart from you have added nothing of substance--and I note troll 68 is now pretending he has some kind of rational argument: but his earlier post about 'oo7' 'license to kill' 'community centres' shows just what calibre this creature really is.

I have answered all your questions repeatedly. You seem to be just choosing to ignore what I say because it doesn't fit your theory. As for revol68, what he posts about you is nothing to do with me. I'm not responsible for him. I don't even know who he (she?) is beyond a nickname on this forum.

Let us just say, Ms Bernstein, you have your version of events, and I have a different set of questions not answered adequately. It is indeed a cautionary tale, and I should reiterate I bear you no personal malice. The key lesson is that no progressive/anarchistt anti-fascists should have any dealings with Searchlight, ever. A lesson, of course, that Black Flag had already learnt before all this happened....

If you don't bear me malice, why make a number of allegations about me without checking your facts? Where's your EVIDENCE?????

LARRY O'HARA

1) So, you're now saying I should have (more than onmce) written to you to ask your views--when your Searchlight associates, who produced the "excellent" From Ballots to Bombs, and who have tried to get me beaten up twice in addition to printing stories implying I was involved in drug-deals between Nazis & Loyalists...they are immune from such requirements, yet I, have an obligation to grant 'right to reply' in advance. I understand. Searchlight did not, and do not, merely ask questions and quote the referenced remarks of third parties--they make/have made definitive statements I am a Nazi. But I forget, like anybody who has ever written for Searchlight, or had close dealings with them, you know nothing about anything they have ever written.

IIRC, you never asked for my views in the letter that you sent me. I simply suggested that any investigative journalist (or any other type of journalist for that matter) should check their facts before publication. I have not seen any statements in Searchlight that you are a Nazi, a drug dealer or any other wild statement but I haven't seen Searchlight since the March 1996 issue, so I'm happy to take your word for it that they did. I'm also happy to accept your word that you are not a Nazi or a drug dealer. I've already said that Searchlight have smeared people, viz. Malcolm of Doncaster DAM. If they can do that to him, there was nothing to stop them doing it to you either. And I do not condone such behaviour. Nor do I condone attempts to beat you up, if that's what happened.

2) You admit Atkinson was a 'friend' of yours--given his work for S/Light, he could only have become such if your dealings with the 'team' were mpre extensive than yopu have admitted.

Well, I'm a close friend of the CEO of a blue-chip plc too, but I've never had any "dealings" with that person. It's possible to be friends with someone on one level but not be close to them on others you know. My dealings with Atkinson were no more than I have already said. I've had no contact with anyone in Searchlight since early 1996 when I left United.

3) Notice the seamless way, when I caught you out implying I was talking about the article praising S/light in the book, you do not admit your earlier subterfuge, but seek to bring in straw-men by citing other things in the bibliography & implicitly/partly blaming a translator! Priceless.

Caught me out on what exactly? L'Europe en Chemise Brune is in the public domain and all my sources are a) referenced as notes and b) in the bibliography. I quoted one line From Ballots to Bombs in a paragraph about UK neo-nazis, amongst a number of other sources. I'm not blaming whoever translated the chapter. Mistakes can and do happen. I tell you once more, I am unable to compare the original to the translation as I don't have access to it anymore.

4) You say giving info to Searchlight "seemed the right thing to do at the time"--it was not then, and is not now. And this continued talk of being "cautious" is an evasion too.

I was always cautious when in contact with Searchlight. Passing on that tip to Searchlight DID seem the right thing to do at the time as I didn't have a number with which to contact AFA. I have admitted several times now that I made an error of judgement.

5) I carefully quoted Albert Meltzer's views, in addition to asking questions about how somebody with your political past could have had so quick a political mind-change. You have still not adequately answered my questions, and it seems you are not going to. Fair enough.

What political mind change? I've already said I didn't agree with every tiny bit of BF's political line. Am I not allowed to have my own views?

You haven't answered my questions either - where is your EVIDENCE? You haven't produced any yet and several people have now asked you for it. People, I might add, who don't know me or vice versa. They would like answers too and you're not giving them. If that's not evasive, what is? You have not one shred of proof to back up your assertions

6) If my criterion of political acceptability is being taken seriously by somebody who has had the dealings with Searchlight--which includes counting Atknison as a friend/confidante--that you have had, I might be even slightly worried by your lack of approbation. But I am not.

Don't worry - I'm not taking you seriously. And I never will until you produce concrete evidence to back up your allegations, which you can't cos you haven't got any.

LARRY O'HARA

I thought the name Atkinson rang a bell--as I recall, he began to actually write for 'United' while you worked there, and as recently as 2004 was still doing so. See this link for example, where he appears to be representing both organisations equally:

link

So, we have you

a) acting as a bridge between United & Searchlight
b) praising Searchlight in a 1992 book
c) writing an article that appears in Searchlight
d) passing "tip-off" to Searchlight
e) binning a letter from me adsvising you have no dealings with Searchlight
f) acting in a way contrary to Black Flag's history of/dealings with Searchlight

and finally

g) becoming not only friendly personally with Atkinson, but actually getting this creature to contribute to United, something that continued until quite recently. As illustrated (for example) by that link.

How interesting that in the reams of self-defence you put forward, you have never admitted actively bringing Atkinson into United's orbit, as you patently did: in my files currently in storage (they may not be on the internet) I have articles by United from Atkinson/plugs for Searchlight. Before you worked for United, I don't recall Searchlight being plugged by them at all (my archives would show this).

How, exactly, is this 'caution' in dealing with Searchlight? It is not at all. And (unlike your account concerning Reflex) this cannot be blamed on pressure from others to do so. And there is no doubting Atkinson (still) works for Searchlight. No doubt, after I have raised it here you will proceed to offer some plausible-sounding explanation for inflicting Searchlight upon Europe-wide anti-fascists.

I've not had any contact with Graeme Atkinson since I left United and I certainly did not put him in contact with United when I worked for the latter. Searchlight were in contact with United before I was!

My very first contact with United was around 1993/1994 when they rang Reflexes and asked me to do a workshop at their first European conference, which I agreed. When I arrived at the conference, which was held in Cologne, I discovered Searchlight had sent someone too (not Graeme). And that was absolutely nothing to do with me. As I understand it, United had rung around a large number of prominent anti-racism and anti-fascism organisations all over Europe to find speakers and workshop leaders. They had asked Searchlight to participate before contacting Reflexes, which I didn't even know until I arrived in Germany. So don't blame me for doing what United themselves chose to do.

PS - you've still not answered my questions.

Where is your evidence?

Why are you being so evasive on that score?

The fact is, JDMF, he doesn't have any evidence. If he did, he would have produced it in his book in 1996. It's all conjecture, based (as someone else suggested) on gaps in the knowledge and circumstantial evidence. He has not provided one shred of concrete proof that I am:

a) a state agent or asset

b) Gable's lackey

c) involved in Leo's death.

And he apparently won't produce any evidence until I do! Which I can't because a), b) and c) are untrue.

I've admitted my mistakes, such as using a dodgy Searchlight pamplet in my research. O'Hara is not big enough to admit that he has made a mistake in his own research.

Disclaimer: what follows has been written after two bottles of wine and a dinner with three Dutch lawyers so excuse any typos etc.

Larry says:

you have never admitted actively bringing Atkinson into United's orbit, as you patently did (my bold

Making it up as you go along, as usual... I've already said United contacted Searchlight of their own volition, before they even contacted me, but hey, to paraphrase that old cliche - don't let the facts get in the way of a good smear campaign! I patently did nothing there.

Apparently I was a "key" member of Black Flag. If only that were true! Ha! Key mail collecter possibly but not on any other score.

Toeing the party line: let's examine this more closely. At Black Flag, in Larry's world, I'm supposed to toe the party line - so much for independent views... Was I supposed to agree with everything that Leo or Albert thought? Hey, why not keep me barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen in that case? But wait, I'm also supposed to be toeing the Searchlight official party line! Which doesn't quite explain why Gable avoided me at the one meeting I attended.

Thank god I was only in Brixton or Paris - if I'd been in Russia I'd have been packed off to a Siberian gulag I expect for not obeying the official line of either BF or Searchlight. But again, in Larry's world I'm not entitled to have my own views.

I ask once more - where is the evidence to back up O'Hara's claims? If he has it, why not put in the public domain and let people draw their own conclusions? You'd think that after 10/11 years, he would be able to cite at least one documented source...

It all boils down to credible journalism. I'm a trained journalist myself - I've studied media law. Rule no. 1 is back up your claims. Because if it ever should go to court, you need proof so you better be damn sure you have it. Without citable sources, you're stuffed. Even the hacks at The Sun know that much.

I and others have challenged O'Hara to produce credible evidence. He hasn't. Make of that what you will. Without that evidence, why should anyone take him seriously? This all reminds me of Jade Goody on Celebrity Big Brother. Max Clifford said "the show that made her will be the show that breaks her". I suspect that SFB will be not only the book that made O'Hara but also the one that breaks him, simply because of one page that he has yet to provide credible sources for...

I'll tell you something else too - if both Leo and Meltzer were still around, they'd both be binning letters from O'Hara too - I knew Leo well enough certainly to be 110% sure of that. And I knew Meltzer well enough to know what he'd think of undocumented claims. They both had a pretty low threshold when it came to loony letters, of which we had a high amount when I was on the BF collective.

Cheers, JeezSheff.

Don't I know you already? I'm sure I do!