Any details of this 'violent conflict'. It sounds quite alarming. Nothing to do with the police or neighbours I hope.

What is going on at Rampart? What violent conflict? Do you need security for NYE?

We had a problem that appears to have resulted from poor communication, a confused decision making process and lack of consensus which somehow resulted in the usual rampart crew organising one party as a fund raiser for the space while a DJ, who plays on rampart radio and has never been involved in the running of the social center, was organising an party which didn't fit into the no-one-gets-paid ethos of the project. However, thats just background. There was an unrelated complaint from other users of the space relating to agressive behavior and threats which we tried to get to the bottom of. In the course of the 'conflict resolution' the whole confussion with the two parties was exposed and a fight broke out resulting in one person be hospitalised with a head injury. This incident confirmed that the acusations and concerns about agressive behavior had been valid and so the person has now been banned from the building and will not be allowed to go ahead with his party. However, he doesn't appear to accept this and we fear that if we went ahead with the ramparty there may be trouble which would spoil everyones evening and threaten the future of the project. We could possibly have gone ahead if we had security but it's not worth putting people at risk for a few hundred quid and a piss up. The rampART was never meant to be a venue for 'squat parties' as such. All rampART events have been politically motivated and free or donation based. When there has been an attempt to raise money it has been for campaigns, not for peoples pockets. Since there are hundreds of other parties on NYE we do not feel it will be too much of a loss for people who might have come. The rampART can get by without the £300 or so that would have beed generated and we'll find a way to drink all the beer at future events. This story is almost certainly not over. The person returned today bashing on the door and making threats and tommorow is likely to be pretty unpleasent. We will do our best to secure the building and the future of the project.

As one outside all this shite and not knowing any of the parties involved (but in full support of what Rampart stands for) it looks to me like the anarcho-party-protest scene is paying the price for its support for the cult of the DJ. Please stop trying to be cool.These egotistical careerists are about as radical and alternative as henry kissinger on a bad day when it comes to their own self interest being put above the collective one. They are often as not tallentless knobheads with compensationally large CD collections. Do not be fooled. The king has no clothes.

Hang the DJ and put on your own CDs.

...I guessed he was black...dunno if I'm right here...and it upsets me to see kids here speaking in this pusedo NYC false style. That is not you. The question is being black here in Blighty...who the fuck am I?

The only answer I can give you is Jah Love.

Can't you find an alternative venue? And the Rampart is way too small for big events like New Years Eve parties anyway. There must be loads of other squats capable of holding several hundred people for a party within a couple of miles of the Rampart.

We have no intention on doing another venue, and there are plenty of other people running squat parties on NYE.

rampART has been big enough for 200-300 people which is fine for a nice party and big enough to be worth while in terms of a bit of cash for the building.

what the building is not big enough for is big egos and a turf war.

Sorry to hear you can't do the party, hope all are ok. with love, charlie xx

...You guys distrupted yer man and his mates drug dealing operation. So he's bound to be pissed off.

Take care,

protection!

Blessed be!

racist wanker!

enough harm has been done. enough pain. why can't people just stick together?
i've been spending most of my time working for a place where people treat each other well, where people have the chance to take responsability for themselves. and i end up with a smashed head (again).
sorry, that's too much.
as long as everybody just looking for their own benefit, this movement is no better than the world we try to change.

people come on...

having heard the story from a dfferent source, and being involved in other similar projects...

the dj in question is not a 'comercial' dj. he is not an example of rampART 'trying to be cool'. he has been involved at rampARTs for months, and has brought in a lot of other people. yeah, he's been involved at commercial venues, as a means to promote peace movement activities. if problems had already arisen with this individual, why had they not previously been addressed?

the issue of decision making is a problem in all of these projects. but isn't it supposed to have something to do with collective responsibility? each person who had a problem with this individual could have brought it up.

is the problem to do with formal processes and structures, or is it just to do with personalities and personal relationships? collective responsibility shouldn't mean that everything has to go through a plenary consensus type thing...it should mean that everyone, working for the good of the project, will be doing their damndest to ensure the project is protected and will therefore overcome any personal difficulties.

this is not the first time that there has been personal conflicts of interest at rampART, nor is it the first time it has resulted in an unfortunate conclusion. but sometimes people just leave the building because they've had enough of the hassle, rather than allowing it to escalate. but then people leaving the building is reducing the collective, increasing the amount of presure laid on a very small core group.

besides...to my understanding of events the person who was hospitalised was not actually involved in the fight, but may have simply been caught in the general confusion. perhaps the report of the incident is a little misleading?

conflict happens. just because we all want to live in a utopian paradise, doesn't mean we're there yet. the way we deal with these issues is fundamental to building this 'other world' of which we speak so readily. the whole thing is an experiment. things will inevitably get complicated. lets try to always keep sight of what we're trying to achieve here.

of course, its easy for me to spout all this, i'm not there...

i know this will be resolved somehow.

"the dj in question [snip] has been involved at rampARTs for months, and has brought in a lot of other people. yeah, he's been involved at commercial venues, as a means to promote peace movement activities."

The DJ in question has been 'involved' only since after the ESF (which is when rampART radio started) and only mostly in terms of doing a weekly set on the radio and bringing other DJs.

"if problems had already arisen with this individual, why had they not previously been addressed?"

The issues were being addressed, thats when he attacked somebody.

"isn't it supposed to have something to do with collective responsibility? each person who had a problem with this individual could have brought it up."

Personally I see collective responsibility in this case as being the attempts made as a collective to deal with the accusations and concerns that had been expressed by individuals rather than leave it up to them to deal with as individuals. Seeing as the problem was one of aggressive and threatening behavior, it would have been unreasonable I think to leave it to those people to face the problem alone.

"is the problem to do with formal processes and structures, or is it just to do with personalities and personal relationships?"

In this case I think it is the process more than anything else. If you get the process right with enough people being involed in meetings on a regular basis then you can mostly bypass the issues that come out of personality clashes.

"collective responsibility shouldn't mean that everything has to go through a plenary consensus type thing...it should mean that everyone, working for the good of the project, will be doing their damndest to ensure the project is protected and will therefore overcome any personal difficulties."

Obviously, and in this case it clearly wasn't the good of the project that the DJ had in mind when he was planning to hijack the rampart fundraising party. Protecting the project meant projecting the vunerable users of the building from having to endure threatening behavior.

"this is not the first time that there has been personal conflicts of interest at rampART, nor is it the first time it has resulted in an unfortunate conclusion. but sometimes people just leave the building because they've had enough of the hassle, rather than allowing it to escalate. but then people leaving the building is reducing the collective, increasing the amount of presure laid on a very small core group."

Interesting comment, shame you have provided no further information about these unfortunate conclusions. Personally I can't think of any comparable situation at all. Perhaps you'd like to ellaborate?

"besides...to my understanding of events the person who was hospitalised was not actually involved in the fight, but may have simply been caught in the general confusion. perhaps the report of the incident is a little misleading?"

The personal hospitalised was attempting to breakup/prevent the fight by getting between the two people directlt involved. She was thrown aside during the attack. How was the report misleading? How was her injury any the less important or injust as a result of her not actually being personally involved in the fighting?

"conflict happens. just because we all want to live in a utopian paradise, doesn't mean we're there yet. the way we deal with these issues is fundamental to building this 'other world' of which we speak so readily."

Yes, I agree but I also sense from your tone that you think the situatition was handled incorrectly. I'd like to know how you think it should have been handled as you seem to be suggesting that those who were concerned by the DJs behavior should have dealt with it themselves which, as I have already said, I think would be avoiding collective responsibility. When they had tried to address the issue orginally, the situation had quickly esculated to the point of the DJ making threats. The issue of the party could certainly have been avoided had the process of decision making and the operating principles of the project been made much clearer to all.

"of course, its easy for me to spout all this, i'm not there..."

indeed