Rachel Bagelmouse on the problem with many left-wing political organisations:
So, what was the result of yesterday? Distraction of the media away from the main message, spoiling of a successful, non-violent, group’s reputation, and possibly fewer members of the general public on the next march. All in all, an excellent afternoon’s work, what?
Of course, the media will always gravitate towards the anarchist wazzocks, probably angry young men who’ve worn out their own libido through excessive masturbation and feel compelled to demonstrate their manliness by throwing bricks and ammonia-filled light bulbs while telling themselves it’s OK because it’s a middle finger to The Man. However, Rachel’s experiences with the vast majority of anti-cuts organisations appear to indicate that barely any of them did themselves any favours by ignoring any requests to speak to the media (or, in this case, a relatively small local news blog.)
Of course, this has two effects. Firstly, no matter how many people actually oppose the cuts (at least, in their present form) it will always seem like a minority of warring organisations with little to no cohesion (Life of Brian, anyone?)
Second, and more importantly, it allows the aforementioned dolts in black to be lumped under the banner of the entirely non-violent UK Uncut to suit the papers’ simple-minded political narratives. Ultimately, a refusal to speak to the media at all results in a vacuum where a paper can conjure a story from thin air to suit its political alignment.