This statement is to clarify events surrounding the “Pack a Scrum of Solidarity” event at The Casa, Liverpool, held on 2nd November to raise funds for the family of Chelsea Manning.
AWOL is amongst the many and varied organisations that have been falsely credited with organising this action. We were not involved as an organisation, though some of our regular attendees were aware of the planned fundraiser and the controversy surrounding its organisers. We are making this statement because we were in a position to speak to some of the individuals who decided to take action, and we felt that somebody unconnected to the event organisers needed to clarify what took place and the reasons for it.
We have compiled this information because accounts of these events on Indymedia have been edited with a clear bias towards the organisers, members of whom are on the Indymedia editorial collective. Consequently, comments from their detractors have been deleted, while biased and misleading accounts, including individuals’ names, pictures and personal details, have been maintained and circulated.
The background
The “Pack a Scrum of Solidarity” event was organised by Ciaron O’Reilly as a fundraiser for Chelsea Manning’s family in Wales, to fund their travel to visit her. This came to the attention of a small, independent group of feminist activists through flyers posted around Liverpool.
While nobody in this group objected to the existence of the event, and all supported Chelsea Manning, there were objections to Ciaron O’Reilly organising such an event due largely to his reported history of transphobia, misogyny and uncritical support for Julian Assange that many felt amounted to rape apologism (he is quoted as saying “there is no rape without a charge, it did not happen.”)
The actions the group planned were entirely non-violent. They aimed to picket the event with a flier explaining their support for Chelsea Manning and objections to Ciaron O’Reilly, and to suggest donating directly to the Pvt. Manning Family Fund without attending the event. A few also planned to attend the event and challenge O’Reilly verbally to acknowledge Chelsea Manning’s status as a woman and to apologise for past misgendering of her and mocking of trans women at the London Anarchist Bookfair. They also planned to challenge any defence of Julian Assange’s behaviour that took place. They did not challenge The Casa directly on their hosting of the event prior to the event itself, but some of the Casa staff were at a Liverpool Against the Cuts meeting at which the issues surrounding the event were raised, and so were aware that there was opposition and that O’Reilly was a controversial figure.
Those planning these actions had no idea that Seamus O’Colgan/Colligan would be involved in the event. He appears to have travelled from London specifically for it after hearing that there would be opposition. O’Colgan (also known as “Peacefulwarrior”, “Skywarrior” and “hesmackeditbro” but mostly using the twitter account @blacbloc) has a widely-publicised reputation from many sources for violence against women, sexual harassment, threatening violence, informing on activists to the media and police and tweeting names and addresses of activists to their workplaces and to fascist groups[1]. It’s worth noting at this point that to those who had planned this action, this reputation was not hearsay or rumour, as some amongst them were personally acquainted with some of those who have been harmed by O’Colgan’s actions in the past. While they saw O’Reilly’s presence as inappropriate and problematic, O’Colgan’s was intolerable, and it was this unexpected encounter that changed the nature of the action from a simple challenge of the event organisers into outright opposition.
The event
Once at the venue, the activists decided not to picket due to the fact that they seemed to be the only ones attending the event besides the organisers and the Casa staff. They sat down in the venue to hear what was being said, and began to have a quiet discussion of the issues with a woman involved in organising the event. While there was disagreement, at this point there was no aggression. One of the activists even made a donation in the bucket at the entrance to the room, as the objection was to Ciaron O’Reilly, not to the event or to Chelsea Manning.
One of the activists approached Ciaron O’Reilly, asking to speak to him, and at this point recognised one of the men near the front of the room as Seamus O’Colgan. O’Reilly asked her to come outside with him for “a chat”, and the other activists currently in the venue followed in order to join more who were smoking outside. As they walked towards the exit, O’Colgan followed and began hitting one of the women activists on the back of her legs with his walking stick. She loudly asked him to be careful, in order to draw attention to his behaviour (which she had no doubt was intentional). O’Colgan then tried to hit another activist with his stick, so a third grabbed the stick from him and hit him back with it. After this, all the activists were asked to leave and barred from The Casa. Angry that they were being barred when O’Colgan had attacked them, one threw a glass, which did not hit anybody but smashed on the floor.
At this point, given the poor attendance, the activists considered there to be little point in continuing their demonstration and left the vicinity of The Casa. They went to another pub for over an hour, and left in separate directions to go home. A few were left waiting for a bus at a stop around the corner from The Casa.
After they had been waiting for a few minutes, somebody who had been at The Casa – the activists are not sure whether this person was Casa staff or involved in organising the event – approached them at the bus stop with a camera and voice recorder and attempted to intimidate and provoke them. Having failed to do so, he returned to the venue. Shortly after this, O’Colgan approached them and began to shout abuse at them.
One of them returned verbal abuse and walked towards O’Colgan, who quickly headed back towards The Casa. The others followed. One grabbed O’Colgan’s coat in order to prevent him from going into the venue before finishing the verbal confrontation that he had begun.
At this point, 7 or 8 Casa staff and/or event organisers and/or customers, outnumbering the 3 or 4 activists, dragged O’Colgan inside and physically confronted the activists. A scuffle followed. One woman activist narrowly avoided a punch from a man who she believes to be a member of Casa staff.
The activists asked why Casa staff were protecting “a rapist tout”. One person replied “I don’t care” and others called for them to leave the property, though they had remained outside the gate, on the pavement.
They witnessed O’Colgan watching them from the window. They checked Twitter to discover that, posting as @blacbloc, O’Colgan had identified an uninvolved male activist (who was not present) as being associated with them, had decided that he was their leader, and was accusing him of “sending” women to attack him. They called for O’Colgan to come out, but he refused. The man who had approached them at the bus stop returned and took photos and voice recordings of them, which were later used on Indymedia and on the @blacbloc Twitter. A woman organiser also began trying to take pictures of the activists’ faces.
Casa staff called the police, and the activists left.
This sequence of events, from the protestors being approached at the bus stop to the police being called, lasted only a few minutes. While there was a great deal of aggression, both verbal and physical, no blows connected with their targets and nobody was hurt.
The Aftermath
Immediately after the event and throughout the days that followed, O’Colgan tweeted names, photographs and personal details of those who confronted him, as well as those of a number of people who were not involved. He has called variously for those people to be fired from their jobs, ousted from organisations that he believes they may be members of, arrested by the police and “doxed” by Anonymous.
O’Colgan has a long history of targeting people in this way, and while his calls for Anonymous or the IRA to target his enemies may somewhat exaggerate the level of influence he holds, these tactics can nevertheless do real damage, social, economic, psychological and physical. People have been made to fear arrest, feared friends and families to be under threat, feared that current or potential employers may see false and prejudicial information about them, even been exposed to the possibility that past abusers may discover their current whereabouts. This includes people who left the event before any violence took place and even some who were not there and had nothing to do with it. Some have been targeted merely for criticising those organising the event via social media. These threats are O’Colgan’s established way of dealing with criticism of all kinds, and all activists should be aware that, regardless of whether they agree with the actions taken last Saturday, O’Colgan is not to be trusted and no information on activists should ever be given to him or to his associates.
So far this statement has been for information, to give a factual account that has been denied space elsewhere and not to justify or condemn anybody’s actions, or give an opinion. At this point I want to change tone and ask readers to recognise that there is a world of difference between publicly criticising somebody’s actions (as was the intention of those who opposed Ciaron O’Reilly’s involvement in the event last Saturday) and exposing activists online with the aim of destroying their lives. There is also a difference between this and publicising an abuser’s identity, to warn others of a perpetrator of abuse who is a danger to their community, and who has had opportunities to take responsibility for their actions and refused to do so (as O’Colgan criticises AWOL for doing to Paul Cunliffe). There is a place in activism for the tactics of doxing and publicising details – for example warning comrades of abusers, police informants or fascist infiltrators – but these tactics are not something to be used lightly in response to any and all opposition, including demonstrations that turn briefly and mildly violent on both sides.
Those who opposed O’Reilly and O’Colgan at the Casa were not abusers, fascists or state agents. They were feminist and class struggle activists with a point to make, and they have been treated appallingly not only by the event organisers and Casa staff but by other Liverpool activists, who must have identified them by name to a dangerous tout with a history of violence. I write this not only to give the perspective missing from Indymedia but to make these people aware of their recklessness. We do not and should never expose other activists and their families to danger for the sake of political differences or petty personal resentments. We are better than that in Liverpool and we must not let the likes of O’Colgan break our solidarity or intimidate us into communicating with him before each other.
These events have broken trust between a number of organisations and individuals, and we need to build bridges and repair that damage. If anybody still believes that those who disrupted this event did so with malice towards innocent parties or without good reason, comment on this blog (comments are moderated and can be kept hidden if you wish) or e-mail AWOL (again, in confidence if you ask for it), and if your concerns are genuine and you express them respectfully, we will do our best to address them.
[1] Not linking to these as, obviously, they contain those personal details, and I would also rather not link directly to O’Colgan’s twitter or blog. These are easy enough to find with Google.
AWOL is a feminist group that meets in Liverpool on the first Monday of the month
AWOL 
ellie
16 November 2013
Really concerned about this, especially the bit about Casa staff possibly being involved with filming activists, going out of their way to cause friction then calling the police. And the possible member of staff trying to punch someone. The drama group I am involved in uses the Casa as rehearsal space, and puts its plays on there. I am now wondering if the Casa is a safe place to be, both as a woman and as a member of the activist community.
angrywomenguest
17 November 2013
Hi Ellie. Those I spoke to were not certain whether the man with the camera and voice recorder was Casa staff, and since this was published I’ve received a message suggesting he may be involved with Indymedia.
I have heard that Casa managers don’t use social media, so may have been unaware of much of the background of what happened. I’m sure it was intimidating for them to see their venue become the site of this confrontation, but hopefully this account will give the situation a bit more context and pave the way for a resolution.
Martin Balmer
18 November 2013
It concerns me that such emotive language as in ‘biased and misleading accounts’ has been utilised when in effect the posting is of itself biased and misleading.I think people need to understand that the Casa is a very important space within Liverpool. From its original identity as a space which for decades was where Liverpool radicalism, in all its many manifestations met multi ethnic Liverpool to the present, a space formulated by sacked Liverpool Dockers and Women of the Waterfront after their industrial struggles from 1997. The walls, front and back are adorned with global messages of support for the women and their partners, testimony to the impact of the dispute.The sheer level of events, political to cultural to social, which the Casa hosts on every night of the week, is proof of its importance as a ‘space’ in Liverpool. That space was basically trashed.No one from the Casa was informed of what was to happen, and to imply that people with links to the Casa attended a LAC meeting and thus knew all about what was planned it is erroneous and is a lie.A member of the Casa Staff, the manageress was vebally abused and hit( so much for sisterly solidarity). Why was a glass thrown and at whom? To wish away this act of mindless aggression with ” did not hit anybody but smashed on the floor ” , is appalling as well.
There is obviously a probelm with an individual, who yes and no one can deny has a deep rooted hatred of women. But turning up unnannounced at the Casa, without previously speaking to the manageress/ manager, and then proceeding to ‘ trash’ the event is not good enough.
My uncle, a sacked Liverpool docker, was in there that night and also was involved with the confrontation outside, as like others in there, he thought it was being attacked by drunken hooligans of the far right. He was abused with’ fuck off you old t–t’ . He is 76 years of age
angrywomenguest
18 November 2013
Hello Martin. Of course, it’s not possible to talk about these events in a way that avoids language that will be emotive for somebody, but I think it’s perfectly fair to describe the account on Indymedia as biased and misleading, without implying that nothing whatsoever in it is true. This account is based on the perspective that had been denied space on Indymedia, and so will also be biased, but I have taken care to avoid anything misleading or false.
Nobody denies the importance of the Casa as a space in Liverpool, and the custodians of that space have a responsibility to the community it supports, which includes those who were being attacked by Seamus O’Colgan. These people may well have been visibly angry, but as the above account explains, they were not mindless and had not come to attack the space or the event.
The claim that the Casa staff had been made aware of the situation at an LATC meeting was not meant to suggest that they knew all about it, and certainly it would have been better if they had been approached privately with more of the background information on Ciaron O’Reilly and asked to request a different host, but time was limited and, as explained, the activists involved did not plan on violence or expect the presence of Seamus O’Colgan, who was the main aggressor in these events.
I was not there either, but those I have spoken to did not assault the manager, and tell me they did not witness this happening. The glass may well have been thrown at the individual who was provoking and attacking the thrower, but it did not hit him or anybody else. Nobody is defending the smashing of the glass, but I can’t help feeling that claims the space was “trashed” due to this action, without reference to O’Colgan attacking others with his stick, are disingenuous.
I am sorry to hear that your uncle was insulted. I hope he can understand that the women had been physically and verbally attacked by O’Colgan and were justifiably very angry with those who appeared to be defending him.
Martin Balmer
19 November 2013
Thank you for the response and this will be my last post/ word on the issue.Just a couple of points which I believe need to be made.People who were in the hostelry next door to the Casa and were outside in the alley way having a smoke, have captured, audio and visual, a couple of women in the alleyway , debating whether to ” bottle the bastard”. It does seem that your justification for what happened and the response,is that that violence begets violence: itself a quasi fascist stance ,developed by Mussolini in Italy.You also seem to imply in your earlier post that the Casa when taking the booking for the event, should have checked or been aware of the potential furore, when in fact, like, a lot of us, the grouping were known for their activities in the peace movement over the years and challenging the violence of the military-industrial state apparatus.Also for a group of supposed libertarians,implying that the Casa should ‘police’ every event they take a booking for, is bizarre. Furthermore to describe the activists , as your earlier post does , as ” working class” activists” is misleading , when so many of them have class origins in the liberal democrat voting middle class.
Finally, the aggression and a seemingly visceral love of violence, which this disparate group of individuals is now reknowned is totally destructive and disruptive and does beg the question ‘who benefits’.Those of us who, for a long time have been around radical politics in the Uk, have got used to agents of the state being in our midst.
It will be interesting if this group starts to picket News From Nowhere , demanding the removal of books and articles by/on Marx, Bakunin,Proudhon, Lenin etc: all white males who displayed and encouraged mental violence towards women, and also were racist and anti-semitic.Surely there has to be moral equanimity.
angrywomenguest
22 November 2013
I’m publishing this comment in spite of its hostile nature to clear up any misinformation that might have led to these ideas.
Firstly, it seems doubtful that uninvolved people in the hostelry next door took it upon themselves to take photographs and sound recordings of complete strangers and share these with other complete strangers. I am more inclined to believe that these recordings, if they exist, were taken by friends of O’Colgan, who we already know approached the activists with recording equipment. That said, it’s not really relevant what they managed to record. Nobody did “bottle the bastard”. People who are angry often say things that they have no intention of acting upon, especially in what they believe to be private conversations with friends.
The statement above is not a justification but an explanation of how the situation deteriorated, and a clarification of the motivations of those whose account had not yet been heard. The point is not that “violence begets violence”, only that, in this particular case, violence was instigated by O’Colgan but others were barred from the Casa while he was defended. Those who don’t feel that violence is justified under any circumstances will no doubt condemn all parties who engaged in or threatened it. Those who believe in self-defence and community defence will not feel these actions need justification. Those who are looking to choose a side on the basis of who was most or least violent are missing the point. Strangely, the phrase “violence begets violence” is something I’ve much more often heard associated with pacifist thinking than with Mussolini or fascism, but thank you for clarifying the origin. I’ll remember it next time I hear a “peace activist” use it to defend their inaction when confronted with an oppressive individual in their midst.
This statement wasn’t intended as a critique of The Casa or an expectation that they should have predicted anything. In fact, I said in my last comment that it would have been better for those who opposed O’Reilly to speak to The Casa staff prior to the event, and they would have done so if they’d had any reason to suppose it would be more than a verbal conflict. I included the information given at the LATC meeting because it seemed relevant to say how much or little Casa staff were likely to have known. It is fair to say that they had no idea of the massive problems O’Colgan’s presence would create, but it is also fair to say that opposition to O’Reilly didn’t come entirely out of the blue. However, there was no reason for them to expect events would turn violent, and they were no more responsible for O’Colgan’s actions than were the activists who responded to them. It is even understandable that the Casa’s response to these actions was to defend those who had booked an event in their space before those who may have appeared to be opposing it. If there’s a criticism implied in the statement, it’s that, having witnessed a man attacking people with a stick, and those people defending themselves, they chose to bar those attacked rather than the instigator or both.
The idea that this is a call to “police” the space ignores several key factors. Firstly, they did police the space – they barred those who they, wrongly, deemed responsible for the disturbance. Secondly, Casa staff did, in fact, call the police (or claimed that they had in order to encourage those outside to leave). Thirdly, what would the alternative be to “policing” the space? You’re surely not suggesting it’s a libertarian principle for the custodians of a space to stand by while people are attacked in that space and do nothing? My complaint is that they took the wrong action, not that they didn’t take action at all. However, I do understand why this might have happened mistakenly, and one of the major aims of writing this was to clear up any assumptions about the motivations of those involved so that people can begin to build bridges.
Your reference to the group as “supposed libertarians” is strange, since until this comment I hadn’t used “libertarian” or “anarchist” to describe them. It’s almost as if your knowledge of these events and the people involved goes beyond that of a casual and neutral observer, but I suppose we’d all guessed that by now. Your further accusations and presumptions about the activists involved are simply false, and on a personal note I find it pretty tiresome the way certain “radicals” dismiss all activists who look younger than about 30, especially women, as middle class students, as if this is something you can tell from a cursory glance or is even relevant as far as economic class and participation in class struggle activism is concerned. I can tell you for nothing that you have no idea about the politics or social backgrounds of the people involved in this action, and if you think who their parents might vote for has anything to do with it you have even less understanding of class. I recommend you read some of the books you listed.
We are not interested in banning books or preventing all writing or speech by anybody who has ever said or done something oppressive at any time, in any context; but we do need to challenge sexism, racism and hetero/cis-sexism , even when espoused by people who we might agree with on other points.
What we should never tolerate, even in the name of “free speech”, is the protection of abusive trans/misogynists, racists, rapists and rape apologists who, in the actual here and now, are making our radical spaces unsafe places to be.
thevenusenvy
19 November 2013
Reblogged this on THE VENUS ENVY and commented:
Manky Scumbag Seamus OScumagoligan strikes again.
MrDemeanour (an Indymedia UK moderator who was not at the event)
21 November 2013
“Consequently, comments from their detractors have been deleted” – this is untrue. We very rarely delete anything; in particular, no comments (nor even parts of comments) have been deleted from that article.
Comments that are posted in violation of our guidelines are “hidden”, so that they can only be seen by appending the special string “?c=all” to the URL. The hidden comments will then appear in black on a dark-grey background. So,
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2013/11/513484.html?c=all
will show you the hidden comments on that article.
You will notice that most of them amount to personal abuse of one kind or another; others are posted by known trolls, or are otherwise in violation of our guidelines. We don’t hide stuff just because we don’t like it.
We make ourselves accountable for our hidings through our mailing list: moderation@lists.indymedia.org.uk. The public archive of the list is here: http://lists.indymedia.org.uk/pipermail/moderation/.
angrywomenguest
22 November 2013
Thanks for the clarification. It does have to be said, though, that many of the hidden comments are far less aggressive or personal than those that have been allowed through, and it is difficult to see how you are applying your guidelines, especially in view of the conversation linked to above.
me
27 November 2013
If you read between the lines it is possible that both sides are (mostly) telling the truth, but there are already some difference in the accounts:
Chris (the guy with the recorder) claims that he did not take the initiative to approach people at a bus stop round the corner, but approached some people after seeing them sticking their heads round the corner and peering at the venue. You claim he came and found them and tried to intimidate/provoke them. Unless there was more than one person with a recorder present?
Both Chris and the other witness he was with at the time say that when O’Colgan went round the corner to see who was there he was “not being abusive”, your account says he was shouting abuse. I suppose this could just be a subjective difference in what is considered abusive.
Both Chris and the other witness he was with at the time report that someone actually jumped on O’Colgan’s back from behind, whereas your account just says that “someone grabbed his coat”.
There is also a discrepancy in numbers – you mention there were 3-4 people “opposing” the event/O’Colgan (for want of a better term) involved in the fracas that followed, and 7-8 “defending” it/him. Chris mentions “I think 4” men and “a couple” of women “opposing” and doesn’t mention numbers “defending”. The other witness mentions “several men” plus “maybe six people” involved in “opposing” and also doesn’t mention numbers “defending”.
If you have any explanation about these possible differences in accounts, it would be useful to hear it.
me
27 November 2013
Sorry, forgot to include link to Chris’ account:
https://indymedia.org.uk/en/2013/11/513484.html?c=on#c298023