[IMC-bristol] please get it sorted

Fri Mar 19 10:20:03 PST 2004

Well done v g, a sane and rational analysis of what is being done by Bristol 
IMC to our sane and rational friend Tony!
I agree it is a "giant problem" when one of the finest minds and natural 
leaders of the great global fight against the US imperialist 
industrial-military complex is told to fuck off. Don't these people know 
there's a war on? Are they going to deal with this? In what better way could 
they possibly spend their spare time than dealing with Tony?
I think a really complicated disciplinary procedure needs to be adopted - 
just like the ones multi-national companies have. These so-called volunteers 
could spend the next few months doing it. I mean, the idea that a collective 
should have a meeting, discuss an issue and take a decision is preposterous! 
(Don't they know there's a war on?)
These people are supposed to get bogged down in procedure, bicker over 
ideology, baulk at the idea of conflict. This kind of decision-making at 
meetings sets a dangerous precedent... Are they all agents of the 
industrial-military complex I wonder?
And if Tony wants to slag you all off and make up lies about you and see 
them published aren't you all being just an itsy-bitsy bit uptight? It's 
only a little article afterall and its only slagging off and telling lies 
about your friends and colleagues. What does it matter? Don't you know 
there's a war on?
Come on guys, sort it out. Tony has so much to offer - paranoia, ignorance, 
pomposity, egotism and general all-round fruit-battyness - how could you 
throw him out like this? What next? Remove him from this list for going on 
and on and on like he's been kicked out of a sixth form debating society? 
(Which he probably was)
I would come and say this at a meeting but like v g I don't really exist.
By the way, there's a war on you know!
Henrietta.

>From: v g <randomjustice2003 at yahoo.com>
>To: imc-bristol at lists.indymedia.org
>Subject: [IMC-bristol] please get it sorted
>Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:02:45 -0800 (PST)
>
>Sorry to carry on but I consider this extremely important.  Its not about 
>the person (in this case Tony) - its about BIMC and its irresponsibility 
>and untrustworthiness.
>How am I, or anyone else, supposed to have any confidence in BIMC when this 
>sort of behaviour is going on behind the scenes?  Yes there is a lot going 
>on out there, and I need to be able to trust the people behind our local 
>independent media.  Until this issue is sorted out and explained 
>satisfactorily this is not possible.  This dpoesnt need to be an issue 
>dragged on forever, it needs to be faced and dealt with now, simply, with 
>sense and fairness.
>The recent mail from Ian with a quick "Fuck Off" is the most recent example 
>of a giant problem.  Is BIMC going to deal with this or not?
>All the advice that has been given by others around the globe, has 
>suggested good practice that BIMC has chosen to ignore.  Nothing about the 
>way this has been handled is right.
>So, my problems with the Tony resolution:
>
>1// Regarding the Tom Rintoul article, I think Tony Gosling has taken too 
>much unnecessary blame for what Tom wrote.  Tom himself says that much of 
>his article was based on the BIMC mailing list emails, and it is unclear 
>what parts of his article are directly from Tony during the interview and 
>what is not.  I personally think that the BIMC group have lost sight of the 
>importance of this article:
>1/ It was an article written for the Bristol Uni paper, so doesnt have a 
>particular high readership.
>2/ Before printing it was posted to BIMC, allowing everyone the ability to 
>comment, complain and correct.
>3/  As it was, the article never went to print anyway.
>
>"Tony didnt "put his infectious guff in a university newspaper". I went to 
>him for information, he gave it to me and I wrote an article based both on 
>that and on emails to the list that have seen over the last four months. 
>The way some of the comments on here read it looks as if people think Tony 
>masterminded the whole thing to have a go at Ian which just isnt true. " 
>Tom Rintoul
>
>"I had already been on the list for several months by then so I had a fair 
>idea of the debates going on internally but wanting more information I sent 
>out an email to everyone on the list asking for comment or, if possible, an 
>interview. Tony was the only person to reply and so I interviewed him. " 
>Tom Rintoul
>"I should have spread my net further when looking for comment on indymedia. 
>I stand by my defense of Tony, I like him personally and I dont see why his 
>having worked for the BBC should stop him contributing effectivly here. 
>What he told me wasnt the problem, what I did with it was...  "Easton 
>Anarchist Clique" and references to class war just sounded too good to pass 
>up. The article suffered because of the emphasis I put on soundbites which 
>I thought spiced it up a little. Not to mention the factual innacuracies. I 
>went heavy on the slander and exagerated bimc's problems because I knew it 
>would sound good to the feautures editor... That said, I do stand by the 
>gist of my argument. I think that BIMC is dominated (wrongly) by activists 
>and that this is, among other things, because of Ian's influence. " Tom 
>Rintoul
>
>"While I commend Tom for his forthright attempt to get to the heart of the 
>BIMC malaise I never said Ian was in the SWP! " Tony Gosling
>
>Perhaps the anger levelled at Tony for this article is misplaced and out of 
>proportion?
>
>
>2// Regarding the emails to anarchobabe, although I do agree that it is 
>rude to send emails to someone when they have specifically asked not to be 
>contacted that way, I think it could also be equally rude to send someone 
>emails outside the mailing list when they have not given you permission to, 
>and I have had an email from Ian asking to reveal myself and long emails 
>from Kyra attempting to explain her bias.  Im not complaining, but again it 
>does seem to be one rule for one...
>Secondly, although Tonys quoted emails are extremely sarcastic sounding, 
>there is nothing abusive, ranting or insulting in them.  He asks a valid 
>question about  the removal of an article, and should have been given a 
>response (I hope he was?).  His 'crime' was sending this question as an 
>email instead of through the mailing list, but this is not something that 
>only Tony does, judging by my inbox.
>I also fail to see why Tony shouldnt describe himself as "A Member of 
>BIMC", as it is his correct title, and the others of you should be entitled 
>to use it also.  He doesnt at any point lead the reader to believe he 
>speaks for all of BIMC.
>
>3// Regarding emails to Kyra, she should perhaps back up the accusation 
>with evidence so we may see how offensive or irritating those emails are?  
>Of course, with email, one can just delete it without reading if one wants. 
>  As I myself have recieved a couple of unsolicited long emails from Kyra 
>recently, again one rule for one...
>4// Still no mention of Ians own emails and how (or whether) that should be 
>dealt with.  Sam says he doesnt remember Ians behaviour coming up at the 
>meeting, so can someone clarify this?  Ian has also in the past removed 
>Tony as a moderator, without permission from the rest of the group.  Surely 
>this is more of a problem than talking briefly with some student about 
>BIMC?  And what about the threats of violence?
>
>5// Ian has stepped down, you've kicked Tony out, and people not involved 
>in either of their circles are left with no trust of BIMC.  There were 
>better ways of dealing with all of this.  Tony scould have been reprimanded 
>and given some sort of warning, and he should have been allowed to speak in 
>his own defense.  Chucking him out was too harsh and not at all in 
>proportion to the 'crimes' he is alleged to have committed.  Ian should 
>have been reprimanded and given warning.  In both 'trials' they should have 
>been allowed to defend, excuse or apologise for their actions.  In both 
>'trials' anyone with a personal dislike for them should have not been part 
>of the decision making process.
>
>But neither of these people, (both who, as far as I can tell, offer a lot 
>to the project in their own different ways) should have been forced to 
>leave the group!  (I tried to send this days ago after I had signed off the 
>list, but none of the mods would put my mail through to the list, so I had 
>to sign back in... conspiracy or just not got round to it?)
>
>The way Ian wrote in so quickly with an "Im back" and then a "fuck off" has 
>made the situation even worse.  Am i the only one who can see the 
>disrespect here, not just for Tony but for every BIMC user?
>
>I object to non BIMC volunteers and anonymous users, such as myself, being 
>told we're unimportant and can be ignored.  Or that people who cant make 
>the meetings should be ignored.  BIMC has rapidly moved away from being 
>about and for the people, and has become about and for a small dictatorial 
>bunch.  Was it always like this?
>
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
>This email list at: http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-bristol
>Archive of this list: 
>http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-bristol/
>Tech List: http://lists.indymedia.org/imc-bristol-tech
>BrisIMC http://bristol.indymedia.org/
>_______________________________________________
>Imc-bristol mailing list
>Imc-bristol at lists.indymedia.org
>http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-bristol

_________________________________________________________________
Find a cheaper internet access deal - choose one to suit you. 
http://www.msn.co.uk/internetaccess