They’re scum, it’s just important to realise that they’re not all reactionary scum. A lot of anarchists have been trying to get this [clean-up] going as well.
~Donnacha DeLong, President of the National Union of Journalists on the twitter cleanup efforts, in response to the following question:
Al Mikey: [What about] the reactionary part of these clean-ups like in Clapham Junction that have overtly classist twists to them. What’s your take on them?
Source. PS A minor battle of wills occurs in the comments thread below as to the precise nature of what Donnacha was actually getting at, see below.
Update: For you pleasure, here are some more gems of wisdom from Donnacha Delong’s twitter feed:
- Britain is a failed state – 2 real longterm choices – bolster it with massive repression #fascism or abolish it #anarchism (link)
- The #Labour Party’focus on police rather than youth services cuts shows they’ve learnt nothing from defeat (link)
- Not quite, repression is the primary response of a self-perpetuating hierarchical system that’s under threat. (link)
Which reminds me very much of this:
This is even more inaccurate than the original piece. I was referring to allegations that some people were being exclusive and divisive in their clean-up operations and, in the full conversation on Facebook, said that I myself had been trying to take part in Tottenham, but couldn’t because of the police cordon. The community clean-up idea was a great one, the way some people apparently used them to sow further divisions between communities was disgraceful. Get your facts straight and don’t trust the Telegraph.
Well I don’t know about you Donnacha but even if the Telegraph mangled the context and order of your quote, I still fail to appreciate how anyone involved in the clean-up operation could merit being described as “scum”.
I also have no idea what “exclusive and divisive in their clean-up operations” means.
By the way, it’s not inaccurate. I’ve attributed the source and he claims he rang you up to confirm it. I decided not to shorten it to the one word quote I would have preferred to give it a bit more context.
Your attribution “on the twitter cleanup efforts.” is even more inaccurate than the rubbish piece in the Telegraph, which claims I said it about everyone who took part in Clapham Junction (also untrue as the quote makes clear). Exclusive and divisive means cheering when riot police attacked a teenager, according to one report. Exclusive and divisive means referring to other communities as scum. Exclusive and divisive means discouraging people from other communities from taking part. It was part of a conversation in Facebook where I was defending the twitter cleanup efforts against over-general attacks. So, if you must quote it completely out of context, please amend your attribution to “on some of those involved in the twitter cleanup efforts”, which would be accurate. Or just delete the whole thing because it makes you look careless with the facts.
“Exclusive and divisive means referring to other communities as scum”.
Al Mikey: “…the reactionary part of these clean-ups…?”
Donnacha Delong: “They’re scum”.
Sounds pretty ‘exclusive and divisive’ to me. There really don’t see too many facts here that I’ve been careless with, but in good faith I have added the original question for more context.
I have no probiem with firing back at people who show themselves to be reactionary, that’s a point of view, not a community.
If you’re comfortable with people using the positive clean-up campaigns to create further divisions, that’s up to you.
I really, truly, deeply, have absolutely no idea what you’re on about. Everything you say seems to muddy the waters.
First of you say, I didn’t attack the clean-up efforts. Then you say, I was attacking only the alleged divisive elements (whose existence remains to be proven). Then you say, oh no, I wasn’t attacking anyone at all, I was defending the clean-up efforts.
For someone who accused me of being “careless with the facts”, you seem to be pretty careless with them yourself. Not a single shred of evidence to support your assertions or rebut mine.
And finally, you still haven’t answered the original point, which is why anyone involved in the clean-up deserves being called scum. What exactly were they doing again which deserved this litany of disgust?
This is what you get for copying a snippet of an inaccurate article in the Telegraph. This was taken from a Facebook discussion where a friend posted something negative about the clean-up operation. I posted something to defend them. He then asked me about reactionary classist elements in Clapham Junction (as above) and I, having heard some very negative things about the way some people had acted in that particular clean-up said that they were scum – meaning specifically those who, it was alleged, acted in a reactionary and classist way – but that not everyone involved was.
And I did answer your question, anyone who cheers when a teenager is beaten by riot police, as one person reported, is the kind of person I will have unkind words for. Anyone who dismisses and insults an entire community as “scum” based on the actions of part of it will get the same back from me. As I’m trying to write another feature at this late hour, let me point you to someone else making the same point: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/laurie-penny/2011/08/social-young-clean-story-broom
Ok, I accept what you say as the true context.
But. Who were these ‘reactionary/classist’ elements (btw that is such an odd choice of words, who uses it outside of a marxism lecture) and what were they doing that was so offensive?
I don’t know, I wasn’t there, I was referring to the previous question and information I’d heard and read (including, for the third time, the allegation that people cheered when a teenage girl was beaten by riot police). It was a Facebook comment, not an essay – I took Al’s comment at face value and answered accordingly – primarily to defend the clean-up movement. Everyone seems to be focussing on the first part of the sentence, not the important second part, which was the whole point. As for the terminology, Al and I are anarchists and we use this kind of terminology in conversations – which is what this is. I explained this on the phone to the journalist from the Telegraph, we were writing in shorthand because we both knew what the other meant. If I were to write that sentence again, it would be: “If there were reactionary people at any clean-ups seeking to use them to cause more divisions in their local communities, they’re scum, but it’s important to realise that they’re not all reactionary scum.” Is that clearer? I didn’t initiate the conversation, I didn’t bring the issue of reactionaries into the conversation, I simply responded in a way to acknowledge the point but counter generalisations.
So, after all that, DeLong’s answer is “I don’t know” and “I took Al’s comment at face value”. Seems to me DeLong has only conceded the point after exhausting a reserve of aggression, obfuscation and evasion.
Not great from the President of the NUJ, is it.
My first comment: “I was referring to allegations that some people were being exclusive and divisive in their clean-up operations and, in the full conversation on Facebook, said that I myself had been trying to take part in Tottenham, but couldn’t because of the police cordon.” Note the word “allegations”, note the statement that I was in Tottenham, I’ve been saying the very same thing all along.
Excuses, escuses, ‘They’re scum… er, I didn’t know what was being talked about, search me guv’. What an absolute wanker you are, de Long. The NUJ should kick your sorry arse out. YOU are the scum.