If his men are harmonious, split them. Quote from The Art Of War
We have now established that Mike Raddie surrounded himself with homeless people during Democracy Village. While activists were trying to move them on from the camp, Mike was encouraging them. To the point that he had two crack addicts living with him in Bovingdon Close.
We also know that he tried the same thing with South Coast Climate Camp by bringing one of the most destructive people from Democracy Village to the camp. It my belief that this was done to cause problems within the camp, not least those that we faced in the Village.
I believe that Mike would have done the same thing with OccupyLSX had he been in a position to attend on a more regular basis. However, there were a number of activist that Mike was avoiding because of his shameful behaviour towards one of them
Mike only visited the camp twice in the whole time it was set up. On both those occasions I was with him. Despite this, Mike penned the following article when Occupy was less than a month old.
Some Questions For Occupy London Stock Exchange by Mike Raddie 23 Nov 2011
We’ve been hearing rumours which if true, have some of us here at BSN quite worried. Hopefully somebody from the London Occupy camps can shed some light on the queries below and put our minds at rest.
1) Is it true that Reuters are acting for the camp as a conduit to the media? Do people think this is a good idea? Why use the mainstream media in this way (especially Reuters with their terrible track record of lies by omission and their obvious interest in maintaining the current financial system) when there is a functioning media team / working group who are more than capable of communicating directly with the outside world?
2) Is it true that the same small group of people are the only ones present at every process meeting? If true and assuming this meeting does indeed set the agenda for the General Assembly (GA) meeting, can anyone see a potential problem with this? If a proposal is made which no-one in the process group agrees with, will it be given the same consideration and equal time at the GA as other proposals?
3) Do people consider the Guardian ‘Occupy CiF’ section a positive addition in terms of raising awareness?
Does anyone remember what happened to the environmental movement after the Guardian got involved?
From Media Lens: “This is exactly how the Guardian and other liberal media responded to the explosion of environmental concern in the 1980s. That was a huge, determined surge of public outrage. The Guardian did its best to co opt it, embracing many Green spokespeople and even creating a supplement, Environment Guardian. That, like much media coverage, defanged and kettled the arguments with nonsense about ‘green capitalism’ and ‘sustainable consumerism’. ‘Moderate’ Green spokespeople were given lucrative media careers, became household names (they often went on to work directly with other corporations). The big emphasis was on not alienating the media, deemed crucial allies – the Guardian was a kind of heroic force for Greens. Less ‘moderate’ Greens were completely ignored or reviled by the media without resistance from ‘moderate’ Greens keen to remain ‘part of the conversation’. That gave the media huge control over the debate.
What happened? The movement became shallower, trivialised, and lost momentum. The media gave the impression that the environment was under new, caring management. And now? The Green movement has been almost erased from the mainstream and media like the Guardian are all about promoting endless economic growth, high status mass consumption, conformity, passivity etc – even though the environment (notably the climate) is in a far worse state.”
Hundreds of police officers approached Zuccotti Park in Lower Manhattan on Tuesday morning. Did this photgrapher just happen to be in the right place at the right time or did the police alert the friendly media of their plans ahead of the early morning raid on Occupy Wall Street?
I believe this article was composed to cause splits within the ranks of Occupy, Mike was offered to attend the meetings he is talking about in this article, but he refused.
Thankfully his article had very little impact, had he been in a position to attend the camp more regularly, I believe his behaviour would have caused major problem for the camp.
Original Article can be found here