b10history-blog

[b10history-blog]

Some questions that answer the most common claims made concerning “10 people in Bloomsbury” or “B10”

1. Was/is there a political group called "B10”?

No. "B10" is an term used to abstractly describe the coming together of 10 activists to write an email. They signed the email “Ten people in Bloomsbury”. It is not an organised group.

2.Were the "B10" anonymous?

The email was signed, “Ten people in Bloomsbury”. The email was sent as a reply to a small, closed, list, that they had been added to by their peers who made up the accountability panel. Almost all of “B10” then attended one of two formal process meetings that were called by their peers (members of the accountability panel), in the weeks after the email was sent. They made themselves known to their peers with their attendance at these meetings and during the discussions that followed.

3. Did the "B10" assert that [REDACTED] was lying or to blame?

This was not claimed in either the original email, which explicitly and repetitively complained about the accountability process, or on social media, or informally. This narrative has been inferred by those who received the email, and then perpetuated by rumours.

4. Have the "B10" been involved in any attempts to bully, harass or vilify [REDACTED] or others on the email list or panel?

None of the signatories of the email have bullied, harassed or vilified [REDACTED] neither on social media nor in real life, verbally or physically.

5. Why have “B10” done nothing? 

Away from social media there have been attempts by many of the people involved to move things on since the email. These include, appeals to one panel member seeking intervention, initiation of new processes and advise. Support for meeting [REDACTED]’s care needs such as professional counselling have been advocated for via email exchanges with involved parties. Concern at the lack of resolution, new process and assistance has been expressed many times via email and with urgency. Online abuse, death threats, encouragement to suicide, dehumanisation, vilification, the circulation of rumours and doxxing, which began immediately following the email and meeting, and which have continued since then, has made it impossible to speak online, take action or move to resolution.

[b10history-blog]

This was the first email sent by the accountability panel on 25.04.2012. The names of the survivor and the accountability panel have been redacted out of respect.

Hello all, *Please do not put the contents of this email, or debate its contents, on the Facebook group – recent information from there has found its way onto right-wing internetblogs and cannot be trusted. Please forward however to all trustworthy comrades* A lot of issues have come up in activist groups in London recently, not least our own, to do with sexual violence. Several of us have talked informally and feel the way the HR situation has been dealt with by our group has so far exposed a lot of weaknesses in the way we handle these incidents, and anticipate their occurring in future. It has not been addressed openly, rumours have been allowed to spread without anyone contacting Edinburgh to find out exactly what happened, we have arranged no process of accountability or education, and it has generally been allowed to fade into an uneasy background where it is more convenient to ignore than resolve. This email is to clarify what the situation is, and make some initial proposals about how we properly deal with sexual violence in our community. 1. Our Statement 2. REDACTED’s account of what happened 3. Course of action agreed with REDACTED 4. What HR has said 5. Problems with how this has been dealt with 6. What Now 7. Note on process 1. Our statement We condemn HR’s actions and behaviour and believe that without serious work and significant change he should not be welcome to participate as a member of our network or in any of our events. Sexual violence and other forms of abuse are not acceptable and we must not facilitate the continuation of abuse by allowing aggressors to participate in our communities. At the same time our view is that to simply ostracise someone without offering any positive goals fails to deal with the problem; simply pushing it onto other people in another community. It is critical that what we do is based on the needs and desires of those who have been, or are likely to be, affected by HR’s actions and the response to them. What happened did not emerge from a vacuum. Several women have described times he has crossed their boundaries, or made them feel intimidated. These points are based on conversations had with REDACTED and various other women who know HR.

This isn’t just important for the specific situation at hand - we need to be a community of mutual solidarity and support, where survivors know they will be believed and supported, and any oppressive behaviour is called out and recognised for what is, not laughed off or tolerated because of someone’s status or charisma. 2. REDACTED’s account of what happened. REDACTED 3. Course of action agreed with REDACTED ·          As many people within our activist and friendship groups should know what happened ·          HR is excluded from social + political spaces within our group until such a time that everyone is confident HR has rehabilitated himself. This includes addressing how he treats others and understanding the impact his actions have and have had on others. Part of this would be him attending therapy for a lengthy period of time. No one should feel under pressure to allow HR to be near them at any point if they feel uncomfortable with that. 4. What HR has said. ·          Accepts his behaviour was stupid and inconsiderate, although he maintains it was without malice. ·          Doesn’t reject the idea that this incident didn’t emerge from a vacuum, and is open to being challenged (with REDACTED [member of accountability panel] or otherwise as a mediator if the person prefers) about past behaviour that has made women (or others) feel threatened by him. ·          That his reaction (not apologising, not accepting that he’d done something wrong or understanding REDACTED perspective, downplaying what took place) to this particular incident was extremely poor. ·          Wants to engage in any process by which he can move on and be considered part of the community again, and accepts this will involve commitment to a proper process. 5. Problems with how this has been dealt with ·          Very few people even knew this had happened until very late on. When we’re dealing with people who are potential threats to others, this is completely negligent. ·          Nobody contacted anyone in Edinburgh to clarify what happened and what REDACTED wanted, or what Edinburgh activists have decided. This meant we’ve potentially been undermining both her and our Northern comrades. ·          Damaging rumours misrepresenting what took place have proliferated unchallenged. This will make it easier for people to dismiss the problems and prevents us from actually addressing it properly. ·          It has been allowed to stagnate, with no group accountability, and no attempt to establish a process which will protect people in our group and others in future. ·          Other radical communities in London have faced similar issues in recent months and without any framework in place, threatening people can be challenged in one group only to move to another and begin all over again with impunity. ·          There’s not been any discussion about the wider context in which this has taken place. 6. What now. ·          Our initial proposal is we hold a meeting amongst our group, after the Easter holidays, to talk about what has happened and what should be done about it. Other radical communities have come up with processes for dealing with sexual violence – some of which are attached at the bottom of the email. The meeting will take place at ·          That this form the backdrop to a series of workshops centred around marginalisation, accountability, safe spaces, sexism (and the many other identity-based oppressions) and sexual violence in radical communities. This will be a forum for the time and discussion required to improve our collective education of these issues and construct frameworks to deal with them better in future. 7. Note on process ·          REDACTED has been in touch with REDACTED to find out what happened and her wishes. REDACTED has spoken to HR to hear his account. ·          REDACTED has seen this statement and agreed to its content. We have also met in person to clarify key issues going forward. REDACTED’s statement about what happened is her own. ·          ‘What HR wants’ has been double-checked with HR to avoid misrepresentation.

·          REDACTED no longer wants to deal with this personally, but we have been given contact details for someone on her behalf in Edinburgh to keep her in the loop. ·          Attached are resources from radical communities who have dealt with similar issues in the past, as well as literature about consent.

·          Please do not reply to this email; if you have any suggestions or questions about process, email one of us individually.

In solidarity, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED [members of accountability panel].

The emails that immediately followed the initial statement:

REDACTED: Please don’t include me in a group email of this nature and then tell me not reply to it.

REDACTED: Likewise.

REDACTED: I need to know who to speak to, also, about HR and New York- he’s been here for the past couple of weeks and is I think planning to come back long term for the summer. Rumours and problems have followed him over here, and I don’t know what my responsibilities are in this situation, to inform or otherwise, if I have any. I will forward this email on to trusted comrades on this side.

I’ll also email REDACTED and REDACTED and REDACTED and REDACTED [members of accountability panel] with more of this; I’m afraid I do not trust REDACTED [another member of accountability panel] not to forward anything I say to the press. I know that the history of my relationship to HR is one of the many things that has been fed to the right wing hatesphere by persons unknown in the movement and I’m still very upset about that.

REDACTED [member of accountability panel]: Hey everyone, 1) I know it’s frustrating, I’m sorry - we thought hard about asking people not to respond, and decided to do so because we really want the discussion face to face to happen, and to happen well. That should be the forum for responding to this, especially because we all know how messy online discussions get, and that it’s basically always the loudest voices that get heard - and in this issue it’s particularly important that this doesn’t happen. If anyone, like REDACTED, can’t make it on Saturday, please contact one of us individually (people who wrote this email) or someone else you know is going to be coming, to make the points you want to make on your behalf. You could write something to be read out. Also filling up peoples’ inboxes is a surefire way to switch people off. 2) Huge, huge apologies - this message should have had a warning at the beginning that the contents are graphic and could be triggering. If you are forwarding this on to someone, please include such a warning at the top. Sorry for forgetting such an important thing. Thanks! x

REDACTED: Surely only the loudest voices are being heard now? But its just there is a structure that legitimates that? best, REDACTED

REDACTED [member of accountability panel]: I’ve responded to this off list for the aforementioned reasons, if anyone really wants to see my response, please email me individually and I’ll fwd it to you! sorry for spamming people x

REDACTED: Hey all, I have some serious concerns about this email and its process. Having spoken to some people already I feel I’m not alone in this. Given these concerns, I feel that the original email really should not be forwarded on to other people before the discussion on Saturday. Perhaps people who have forwarded the email could forward this as well.

The email response sent from B10 on 28.04.2012

All, So having thought and discussed with lots of people over the past day or two this group email list seems to be, in spite of the request not to respond to it, the most appropriate place to say something before Saturday’s meeting. We think its important to speak up now as things seems to be spiraling quite rapidly, which was probably inevitable. We want to say that we absolutely and emphatically reject the legitimacy of this process. Given that the consequences of this process are so serious and that the effects of its power are already becoming real, in the form of total exclusion, we feel compelled to disrupt the attempts to formalise, amplify and make viral that power and its judgement. The accountability panel were unappointed or self appointed. Furthermore, their process was secretive and not open to the ‘community’. The accountability panel act as both Judge and Jury. The email reads as a court transcription and judgement. It builds a case. Claiming to be a suggestion, the email arrived in our inboxes fully formed. Their process points that were offered to us are mere action points. The lack of openness and impossibility of dissent within the process of the accountability panel has its correlate in the email. The email that was sent to us on Wednesday was a performative document that enacts what it claims to develop. The email is designed and encouraged to go viral with no ‘right of reply’ or process to actually develop it before that inevitably happens. The email sets up a realm of victim-led justice, but no questioning of what values inform the punishment is allowed. These need to be explored openly. The email implies that there is an inside and outside. Anything but silence puts you outside of the process. The implications of this have already been acted out, through some of those who have questioned the process being shamed as rape apologists. The email was written in a language of “our community”, of “we”, which deliberately masked the equivocation between their small panel and everyone that reads the statement. It therefore acts as a form of coercion, nullifying consent. This was confirmed in the command: ‘Do not write back to this list’. As such we have concerns that the accountability group is vanguardist, authoritarian, and appropriates its legitimacy from the recipients of the email by perpetrating violence against the community. They gain power by making decisions, while not taking responsibility for the ramifications their actions as a panel. The point of the accountability panel was supposedly to get above rumours, yet in its deceit and inherent structure the email has actually exacerbated the generation of rumours. Furthermore, we are also concerned that the people involved in the panel have not been in any way reflective about their own relationships with REDACTED and HR, or at least have not addressed these relationships in their email. Meanwhile, the email presumed, and gave as one of its justifications, that this incident has not been dealt with, yet there have already been a range of personal and collective responses. By stating that the issue had not been dealt with at all, the email pretends as if any informal processes which were occurring did not occur, including the informal process which led to the construction of the panel itself. Through the statement, everything is flattened out and made abstract. HR is made into a concept, a type. By using types and set narratives the statement prevents inquiry of the singularity of the case, which is totally necessary if we are going to address these problems in any serious way. We have spoken to HR, and are aware that the panel did not offer him an opportunity to directly make a statement in the email, but instead summarised words from a private phone conversation and email exchange, a summary which fits into a narrative the panel has offered. We have also been told, by one member of the panel, that there were conversations about BDSM and knife-play between REDACTED and HR prior to the incident, a detail which has been omitted despite this one member of the panel (at least) having been made aware of this by REDACTED. We do not want to present evidence to produce a different judgement on ‘the case’. Our priority is to question the power of the panel, and make it clear that omissions have occurred. We say this because we fear that HR is being excluded from this ‘community’ without anyone trying to stand in the way of a sham court which has side-stepped the truth not to produce justice, but in order to produce judges. It is critical that we acknowledge the regressive nature of the operations which have been set up by this email, and disrupt them immediately. This does not mean failing to address what HR did. Rather, it means that we have to do away with summary justice, and with the ability of a small group to enact punishment. Indeed, we ought to acknowledge that this process of exclusion and the processes of homogenising the group are actually repressive with regard to the reflection on and challenging of the myriad modes of violence, power-play and threats which are structural to our society, and from which our groups are not exempt. We are aware that many people have felt silenced by this process. We hope that our response will enable others to speak about what happened and what is to happen. Given what’s already happened to those who have criticised this process, and the potential for such things to go viral, we’re reluctant to sign our names here. Some of us will be at the meeting on Saturday. 10 people in Bloomsbury.