,
43 tweets,
14 min read
Read on Twitter
Mass blocker @MikeStuchbery_ has asserted in a response to @DVATW that he does not endorse violence 'as a political tool'. However we can clearly see that he DOES endorse violence by Tweets where he encourages violent confrontation. It is the circumstances that are in question: 
He clearly endorses violence of some kind. He has not retracted these statements and appears to stand by them. As I write this all of the above tweets endorsing violence are still live at the following links:
The last of those tweets is particularly interesting when viewed in context. The thread was obscured through several retweeted responses so I have reconstructed it in one piece below. It shows Stuchbery being challenged on his stance and appearing to justify political violence.
He takes a particularly interesting approach. He admits that there are antifascists that use violence, but in turn says that there are some that do not. This is a strange response when he is being asked explicitly if he rejects violence. It was an opportunity to condemn violence.
He did not take that opportunity. What he actually did could easily be taken to be an endorsement political violence. In the first tweet quoted here he belittles the concept of political violence being suffered by those he deems to be 'fascists':
In the second of his tweets he draws comparison to the violence required to win a boxing match. You can quite reasonably reach the conclusion that this represents an endorsement of there being a need to resort to political violence to deal what is deemed to be 'fascism'.
We can demonstrate that this is not the sole evidence to this end. We can see him acting in keeping with this perceived stance with other tweets that seem to endorse violence even more explicitly:
So when Mike Stuchbery claims that he does not endorse political violence he does so in complete contradiction to his own conduct. I am not sure if he is doing this out of lack of self-awareness or just trying to front it out, but his legal position can not be considered strong.
And it still leaves the question open of in what context he actually does condone violence. I am a pacifist, but I think there are situations that you have to reluctantly resort to violence, for example in matters of self-defence when believe yourself to be in mortal peril...
But where the line falls for Stuchbery does not seem to be very clear. There seems to be a kind of belief circulating among some political activists of all creeds that unprovoked violence towards 'enemies' is actually a form of self-defence...
The theory seems to go that these people would do you harm if they gained enough power to have the opportunity, thus it is fair game to assault them in the present. This often involves aiming a lot of exaggerated or fabricated grievances towards the subject of the violence...
Last year Mike Stuchbery posted tweets that seemed to encourage some form of confrontation between antifascists & those attending a Generation Identity conference. Note the image of the fist smashing the Generation Identity logo. Note "They must be stopped". What is he endorsing?
Note the clear call to arms. Note 'Which side are you on?' This seems to imply "You are with us or against us." He appears to try to ramp up the peril. With his previously stated stance how can he post these things and claim he did not think violent confrontation was possible?
On the day of the event @Lucyfrown was subjected to a vicious assault by a woman who ripped the hair out of her head. Ms Brown subsequently wrote a striking account of the incident:
lucybrown.info/I-Don-t-Want-T…
lucybrown.info/I-Don-t-Want-T…
This would have been an ideal juncture for Stuchbery to condemn such violence unreservedly. This did not appear to happen.
My understanding is that the woman that attacked Ms Brown was extremely vulnerable. Sadly a few months down the line she committed suicide. She was hailed by many on the extreme left as a martyr. Mike Stuchbery spoke at her funeral. On the day he posted this:
I am concerned by Stuchbery's participation in this martyrdom with an image implying violence. I can not see what other message there could be. The individual was most noted for this unprovoked violent attack which he failed to condemn.
There was no sign of self reflection. The perpetrator was so vulnerable that she killed herself soon after, yet nobody seems to have stopped to think "Did we exploit her?" A vulnerable woman's death appeared to be capitalised upon for political interest.
Many 'antifascist' extremists seem to have held Ms Brown responsible in what can only be regarded as an act of blind victim-blaming. They really wanted to make the woman that attacked Ms Brown a martyr. They did not mention her problems in life, which I understand were numerous.
Recently Ms Brown asked Stuchbery to make clear his position on the attack. She asked Stuchbery explicitly if he condoned the attack she had suffered. He responded by blocking her:
Ms Brown was not the only one blocked. I got blocked too. In fact Stuchbery seemed to go on a blocking spree against anyone that made a cogent critique of him.
In January Ms Brown gave an interview lasting over an hour to BBC Newsnight who then chose to omit her contribution in its entirety. The tone of the resulting piece greatly differed from that of suggested by her interview:
Stuchbery subsequently seemed to gloat that he had contributed to the piece which Ms Brown was omitted from. However, he did not appear in the piece & I can find no reference to him being credited. That brings up important questions about the journalistic integrity of the piece.
Stuchbery is actually starting to gain traction in the mainstream media with titles such as @Guardian and @Independent touted as a supposed expert on the 'far-right', having two articles placed on 5th February:
independent.co.uk/voices/tommy-r…
theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
independent.co.uk/voices/tommy-r…
theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
I would have no problem with this if it was made clear that Stuchbery is not writing from a position of impartiality and that he has made rather contentious statements appearing to endorse violence, but this part of the narrative is left out of his mainstream work.
This lack of candour is also very concerning, especially when it is pointed out to the editors of the Guardian and Independent and they do not seem to consider it to be worthy of response:
Such undeclared bias in the Press has now escalated into Parliamentary affairs. Since Tommy Robinson's utterly unacceptable behaviour at Stuchbery's house, Tom Watson brought the matter up in Parliament:
Mr Watson's speech in Parliament implied a one-sided issue of intimidation from those labelled 'far-right'. It is unacceptable that this incident be extrapolated into a proposal for a new policy, especially given Stuchbery's stance. I provided a response:
Stuchbery's experience as a 'victim' is being provided with no reference to what some might consider a legacy of encouraging such intimidation. This is a problem when it is being presented in Parliament where honesty is obligatory & ignorance must be corrected upon becoming aware
It is arguable that the evidence of Stuchbery support's of political violence is extensive and challenging to contend against. In my opinion any claim of defamation would likely be robustly and conclusively defended.
Yesterday... YESTERDAY, Stuchbery, a notorious mass blocker was calling out David Vance for having him blocked. Today with Vance's block lifted and the danger of actual debate breaking out, Stuchbery has swiftly blocked him back! That seems a panic move:
Maybe Mike Stuchbery would be best advised to actually start trying to engage in real debate with people that disagree with him and properly address the issues at hand rather than reaching for the cloistered environs of his ever more elitist friends.
The sad thing is, if the mainstream do eventually pick up on the questionable tweets, I suspect the people that are helping Stuchbery get mainstream recognition will drop him like a stone. He will just be another one chewed up and spat out by those claiming the moral monopoly.
Addendum:
For several weeks a number of people including myself have been focusing on three examples Tweets from Mike Stuchbery seemingly endorsing violence. While this thread was being written and published these three tweets appear to have been deleted without explanation:
For several weeks a number of people including myself have been focusing on three examples Tweets from Mike Stuchbery seemingly endorsing violence. While this thread was being written and published these three tweets appear to have been deleted without explanation:
Stuchbery does not appear to have been suspended so it looks as if he deleted them of his own free will. He had been less than forthcoming in explaining how these tweets correlated with his assumed position of moral superiority.
As previously mentioned, Stuchbery, a man that seems to block nearly anyone that tries to engage him in actual debate, mocked David Vance for blocking him. When Vance lifted the block and tried to engage with him, Stuchbery blocked him back. That looks like running away.
Today he has mysteriously changed from his previous policy of asking to be DM'd every example of 'harassment' (that coincided with a big push to get him to confirm his stance on political violence) for his 'file'. Suddenly he only wants to know about 'defamation' from big figures
That is quite a shift from him suggesting anyone that says anything he deems to be 'defamatory' would be subject to legal action. It also rather conveniently means he can claim he does not know about allegations and thus never have to answer to them.
By deliberately ignoring critical voices not deemed to be 'major figures' and labeling all criticism 'defamatory' or 'harassment' Stuchbery seems to be trying to protect himself from any kind of rational debate or justification of his standpoints...
He may feel he is protected as he has major political figures rather unwisely portraying him as a run of the mill journalist rather than someone who has possibly endorsed political violence. Maybe he thinks no big figure will call him out & risk looking like supporting Robinson?
But why did he delete those tweets? Will he answer that question? These tweets that he has stood by for weeks, suddenly, today, he had to delete them. What is the reason? Tell us why @MikeStuchbery_
Meanwhile, the deleted tweets are out there forever (for now) on the Wayback Machine:
Here is the legacy link for the tweet I missed out:
