Talk:London Action Resource Centre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject London (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


This should not be classified in Wikipedia, since WP is a 'systemic' resource and as such appears to be against the ideals of the LARC.

If anything it should be filed under a different, completely unrelated and hard to find name.

--Dunk 13:15, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How useful.

The buildings puropose does seem to be to help people carry out various prjects and what not, as such it's a practical one. Datepalm17 10:01, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

The library at LARC is experiencing a fresh start and is free from the tyranny of structurelessness that the oxymoronic anti-systemic library imposed! NickW 22:59, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

i have changed "collectively run" to "run by a limited company". NickW, a former director should be able to verify this.

It is very debatable about whether WP is a systemic resource! It is a very POV to suggest that WP is systemic!#


I've put a POV warning as NickW's edits are not neutral! 18:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

1)How am I not neutral? 2)How are you neutral? 3)Who's got the axe to grind? NickW 19:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


Moving forward[edit]

London needs to get it's act together and come up with a reasonable solution on this entry, so that us here across the pond can get the proper information about the LARC. brooklyn_agit 22:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed! I cleaned up a bit, more is needed... Mujinga 21:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

removal of POV tag[edit]

i have taken out a few unsubstantiated statements, which can be replaced if backed up by a reliable source. having done that, i feel i can remove the POV tag and i hope we can expand the article again by adding more information, perhaps along the lines of the RampART Social Centre entry. Mujinga 16:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I have restored some of the material. Unfortunately the Companies House website is shut at the weekend so I could not put up the company refrence number etc. I hope to get a chance later in the week. I do not see how the entry can be along the lines of the RampART Social Centre, when LARC is basically Mark Brown's Wendy house!Harrypotter 18:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the POV, spurious self-referencing, and non-notable content. I'm also fed up of Harrypotter and his sidekick taking it upon themselves to use Wikipedia to promote their personal fantasy - as I was involved in setting up LARC I don't want to have to constantly fight over what's in this article. Is there an uninvolved third party out there willing to check up on all this? NickW 09:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmmmm. I'm an uninvolved third party i guess, but i dont have much time to waste right now. This page should certainly be better .. i have tried to clean it up again. Mujinga 11:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

More on moving forwards[edit]

I have contacted NickW, and Harrypotter about having a discussion here as to how to make the page better. First of all it would seem to be a good idea to find out what exactly the controversy is. Where is the disagreement? I'm not really sure but it seems to revolve around different ideas of how the place is run, but that should be quite simple to state in a NPOV way. Mujinga 12:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have made some minor alterations - i.e. claim, selected and included the company reference number.

The controversy is not necessarily simple and indeed involves issues which appeared in the national press in England wand also stuff translated in French as well. It also relates directly to the fascist infiltration of the PGA by Leonid Savin a follower of Alexander Dugin. These are of course very real issues, despite the smug complacency of NickW who seems very keen to cover the LARC/PGA collusion with fascism

2004 Controversy[edit]

Following the disruption of the London European Social Forum (ESF) meeting, on Friday October 14, 2004 the National Assembly Against Racism (NAAR) issued a statement signed by twenty signatories denouncing this intervention as "the introduction of physical violence by a very small minority to undemocratically suppress people�s views within the ESF"[1]. They then refer to two groups of "anarchists", one of which completely opposed the ESF and threatened the Mayor Ken Livingstone with violence, and the other group the Wombles who they say organised the storming of the stage on October 14.

The following day, the Metropolitan Police arrested four anarchists at Kings Cross, whilst on their way to the ESF Trafalgar Square Rally. (Lee Jaspers, secretary of NAAR is also Ken Livingston's Special Advisor on equality and policing [2]). Following this, Javier Ruis, singled out by the police for arrest in Trafalgar Square[3], issued a response PGA Considered As Neoist Invisible Theatre which highlighted his role as the technical person responsible for the computer in LARC and stated that the threats were made by the West Essex Zapatista which he claimed consisted of two people.

Although not responsible for the original Attack Red Ken posting, the West Essex Zapatista issued a statement Red Ken or Chicken Licken criticising the NAAR, the Wombles and the PGA (of which LARC is an info point).

I have to leave the computer know, but this is a start at dealing with the controversy which as you can see involves quite complex issues. More later.Harrypotter 13:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont see at all how these comments relate to the page we are discussing here, namely a page about the LARC. Please clarify. Mujinga 00:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, it had timed out on the signature. As stated above it has not been completed.Harrypotter 13:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


I do not understand why this sentence: "The London Action Resource Centre supports individuals and groups taking direct action on social and ecological issues, or enagaging in other radical projects" should read "The London Action Resource Centre supports SELECTED individuals and groups taking direct action on social and ecological issues, or enagaging in other radical projects". If you want to include the word "selected" please explain your reasons here and back up the inclusion of this weasel word with a reliable source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mujinga (talkcontribs) 00:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

actually i did sign this comment, but there was some technical problem - also only half the above message was shown. now the problem seems to be resolved Mujinga 00:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
problem explained here ... please be sure to close your tags! Mujinga 00:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I've made a change to the introduction which I think explains this issue better than the use of the so-called weasel word. Comments? 00:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Which change do you refer to? 'Building' to 'buiolding' or "which runs the centre in the fashion of a Bakuninist invisible dictatorship". I find both pretty strange. Neither explain at all for me to use of the word 'selected'. I am trying to assume good faith but i think you need to explain yourself better Mujinga 00:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
well, its not "building", comrade thats obviously a typo - but i too will try to assume good faith on your part... and i appreciate that its not easy to understand all this. the articles on bakunin and invisible dictatorship should make it clearer wahat is the politics behind the project - ... ie that a group operating behind the limited company (ie the so-called revolutionary elite) will make decisions while functioning behind a front group which claims to be non-hierarchical and self-organised. it is that bakuninist group (ie a secret organisation) which will select which groups use the building and which do not. i am not arguing for the inclusion of the so-called weasel word in any case, but to explain the situation to a better to newcommers. 01:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your clear answer Now i can understand your reasoning i can reply that you are doing what appears to be original research. The Wikipedia maxim of no original research states in a nutshell "Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position". Thus, the claim that the centre is run in the "fashion of a Bakuninist invisible dictatorship" needs to be backed up by a verifiable reliable source. Otherwise it is has no place in the article. Mujinga 11:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


I do not think Mujinga is NPOV, but perhaps is unfamiliar with the events which have taken place at LARC - but this does not mean NPOV. Having looked at the contribution to the Social centres page and their involvement in the decision to completely excise the discussion relation between Social centers and community centers it is clear that the person is very partisan concerning these issues. i,e,

Social Centres are distinguished from Community centers in the particular relationship social centres have toward the state and governmental institutions. While "communtiy centre" is a term used to describe any center of "public" activity, occasionally sanctioned by the state or private interests such as a corporation, social centres are characterized by their quasi-legal and sometimes illegal existence, their direct subsistence on the community that supports it and their political vision vis-a-vis the state.

This simply has no basis and runs against the terminology of social center in the early twentieth century see the section in Community Centres on Schools as Social Centres:

==Schools as social centers==

Early forms of community centres in the United States were based in schools providing facilities to inner city communities out of school hours. An early celebrated example of this is to be found in Rochester, New York from 1907. Edward J. Ward, a Presbyterian minister, joined the extension department at the University of Wisconsin, organising the Wisconsin Bureau of Civic and Social Development. By 1911 they organised a country-wide conference on schools as social centres. Despite concerns expressed by politicians and public officials that they might provide a focus for alternative political and social activity, the idea was successful. In 1916, with the foundation of the National Community Center Association, the term Community Center was generally used in the US. By 1918 there were community centres in 107 US cities, and in 240 cities by 1924. By 1930 there were nearly 500 centers with more than four million people regularly attending. The first of these was Public School 63, located in the Lower East Side. Clinton Childs, one of the organisers, described it as

"A Community organized about some center for its own political and social welfare and expression; to peer into its own mind and life, to discover its own social needs and then to meet them, whether they concern the political field, the field of health, of recreation, of education, or of industry; such community organization is necessary if democratic society is to succeed and endure".

bearing in mind the history of the building as an International Modern School - linked to that in New York (in which Emma Goldmann was involved and the previous discussion in which Mujinga was deeply involved, it is clear that this person has quoite distinct views on Social Centres, particularly in relation to Ramparts. - which is about 700 metres away from LARC. Further as one of the bones of contention is whether LARC is sanctioned by private interest - i.e. the millionaire Mark Brown of the Vestey family. This is not to say that Mujinga hasn't got important and interesting things to say about LARC, merely that it is no more Neutral than anyone elses and certainly I would not accept them in any way as a neutral arbitor between Nick W, myself and Paki.TV. i have to admit I gave up arguing on the Social centers page faced with a glacier of ignorance and the preposterous suggestion that only activists in recent years have been smart enough to invent the wheel as it were. (Synagogue is basically the greek for social centre and emerged fromjewish culture in the hellenised world of cAlexandria about two thousand years ago. In nthis context the emergence of the International modern Schools out of Jewish culture is particularly instructive, as it is in many ways a secularisation of jewish culture - and in this context it would be good to remember that certainly in England the idea of universal education was first implemented in Jewish circles who created their own schools lonmg beforethe educational reforms of the late nineteenth century. Of coyrse I a don't know to what extent Mujinga is actally interested in how the ral world works and the historical developemnts which have yielded contemporay society, or whetehr they prefer to reiterate the mouthings of contenmporay neo-libertarian thought, but where's there life there's hope . . . I hope. hey why not check out infed and get yuself an edikation!Harrypotter 22:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your reply harrypotter, it makes interesting reading but i would suggest that it would be better if you could stick to the topic, namely how to improve this page about LARC rather than zooming off on tangents.

and if i might reply to some of your points...

1 of course I am not NPOV, being a human being. but i hope my edits to wikipedia are NPOV, because that is one of the three content policies.
2 you seem to attribute this quote to me:
"Social Centres are distinguished from Community centers in the particular relationship social centres have toward the state and governmental institutions. While "communtiy centre" is a term used to describe any center of "public" activity, occasionally sanctioned by the state or private interests such as a corporation, social centres are characterized by their quasi-legal and sometimes illegal existence, their direct subsistence on the community that supports it and their political vision vis-a-vis the state".
- i didnt write it. if you can back up your arguments with reliable sources, by all means improve this paragraph. it's pretty bad right now in my opinion! i do believe social centres are different to community centres, at least in the parlance of modern England, and my part in the debate was merely to back up brooklyn_agit and prenna when they said that you had not put forward a good enough case for the merger. see also this edit
3 if you are not happy with me arbitrating this dispute between yourself, and NickW, then thats fine, we can take the arbitration process another step further. i already said that i dont have much time to waste on this. but i remember i never claimed to be NPOV - just an uninvolved third party. if you make accusations, they should at least be correct.
4 let me reiterate, please stay on topic - rather than ranting about contemporay neo-libertarian thought, which im sure you can quite happily do down the pub, why not discuss on this page how to improve the LARC page?

Mujinga 02:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

moving forwards again[edit]

so harrypotter is not happy with me arbritrating this dispute (as stated above). that's fine by me, but i think we are going to have to get some more people involved and maybe even end up in formal arbitration because NickW states here that harrypotter and are in fact the two members previously expelled from the LARC collective. then it seems quite clear that they are following a path of destructive vandalism on this page, albeit a path more of a bizarre intellectual nature than a straightforward page blanking. i thank harrypotter and for engaging in discussion with me, but i really dont think wikipedia is the best place to pursue a vendetta. i hope you both understand that.

examples of the vendetta can be found here, here, here, here, here, and here. The path followed seems to be one of inserting weasel words or of obfuscation.

Following the steps on formal dispute resolution i think we are at the stage where informal mediation has failed and therefore the next step is discussion with third parties. Now i dont think it is worth getting a third opinion because i doubt that will help very much it is not "a controversy involving only two editors". I would rather we get some sort of consensus on how to progress, so im going to make a request for comment. For any users wanting to help mediate, i do advise that this is quite a strange case! Mujinga 02:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This page isn't an advertisment for LARC, which Mujinga, along with Nick W - a director of LARC, seems keen on making. I can understand why NickW would want to do that but wheres the rub for you Majinga? I'm just describing what i know, not researching anything - i am getting accused by all sorts of nonsence by NickW, but i will not stoop to that level to respond - but i will say that i have alot of personal experience with anarchist activity in London - i run a website on where u will see that is involved with the scene and i know a Bakuninist invisible dictatorship when i see one !!!! 03:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC) you may very well know what a bakuninist invisible dictatorship is. good for you. all i ask is that you give a reliable source when saying that about LARC in the LARC wikiarticle .. i think thats not asking too much. Please participate in the rfc below .. i will leave you a message now. Mujinga 03:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment: London Action Resource Centre[edit]

This is a dispute about the content of the London Action Resource Centre page 03:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute[edit]

  • i asked for the rfc in the hope that we can get some consensus on how to break through this slow burning edit war. my thoughts on the matter are summarised here Mujinga 03:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've removed the Bakunin reference until a source is found 03:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
that's not quite true. i removed the reference yesterday, what you have just done is to make another destructive edit, this time justifying it as "remove non verified and promotional material", which is indeed partly true, since you were removing some material lifted from the LARC's own website, but not the whole story. in fact, this is quite a good example of your insidious campaign against the LARC, which you seem to be waging through the wikipedia page. i call this latest edit destructive because you have created a few grammatical errors and removed a referenced statement (which harrypotter had previously tempered with the word "claim") Mujinga 04:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
what i meant is i will not re-insetrt the bakunin reference. and what gramatical errors do u refer to? all you need do is correct them - and the statement i took out is just larc's self promotion, whoever put it there. Your accusations are what are insidious and your use of the word "destructive" is what is weasly.

Statement by NickW My view on the LARC article is straightforward. Users and Harrypotter have attempted to misrepresent LARC through their numerous edits. Their motivation appears to be one of 'revenge' as they are banned from using LARC (you'll note early contributions to the article by Harrypotter in 2003 were of a different vein). They are both consistent in their approach and methodology, favouring obscure labyrinthine 'intellectual' debate (i.e. obfuscation to confuse and wear down third parties), personal attacks and 'outing'(N.B. I don't think they always use their named accounts), self-creation of supporting 'evidence', and general misrepresentation. Interestingly enough, it was this kind of behaviour that led to their rejection from LARC.

To put LARC in context too - LARC was created by a group of people who had been involved in London RTS, the UK anti-roads movement, and the J18 coalition. The activities of this group - including myself - are very well documented in both the corporate media and the DIY media. The many groups involved in LARC are listed on the LARC website, along with more details on LARC's history. I'm happy to answer any more questions on any of the above. Thanks to Mujinga for taking this dispute forward. NickW 10:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Outside comments[edit]

  • I got here through the RFC system and saw the article in this state. Apparently had removed almost half the article in one edit without any convincing explanation. As a result the article was almost unreadable. I encourage to refrain from making these kind of edits in the future. Instead, try to spell out what exact problems you have with article in the talk page. Instead of making one big change, try to expand it out into many smaller ones. (That way it's less likely to be reverted.) Good luck, --Taxico 13:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC) has just made another similarly POV and detrimental edit. If no-one else fixes it I will - but would rather let third parties have a go as I don't think a continuation of the edit war will help resolve the current dispute. NickW 09:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I have deleted alot less, but the promotional material is just no good, and is the very material in dispute. Outsiders please read background before comment 22:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC) you've lost all perspective on this article and on what Wikipedia is and how it works. The information you've removed is not 'promotional' but part of the description of LARC. I think any third party who has the time to look through the edit history will see your consistent attempts at misrepresentation and POV. I'm reverting your edit, but hope more third parties will get involved and sort this article out. If they can't I would rather it gets deleted than is used as a forum for your personal and totally unreasonable grudge. NickW 22:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
You are a director of LARC - and therefore should not even be editing these pages, as people should not edit pages about themselves!!! 23:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The LARC article is not about me. Furthermore I'm no longer actively involved in LARC. Your edits constitute vandalism and you have provided no valid reason for the changes you have made. Please do so before you edit the article again. I'm reverting your vandalism as before - but hope more third parties will get involved asap. You have ignored the input of the last two 'neutral' Wikipedians. How many will it take? NickW 12:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

POV tag[edit]

I've added the POV tag back to the article - I don't think there's another option until the dispute is resolved. NickW 13:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ownership of building[edit]

I have added referenced sources as regards the ownership of the building. I think it is unquestionably notable that the building does not appear as an asset in the accounts. Obviously the the value of the building has probably doubled since the project started (In one year land prices went up by 22% in Tower Hamlets), so the person/people who actually own the building have made at least £200,000 or about £30,000 a year. Who actually benefits from this, well perhaps NickW can enlighten us. Obviously the remarks here constitute original research and have no place on the page itself, but they do show why the information is notable.

As regards the 2004 stuff, I shall return to that presently. Rather than having projections on this or that persdons motivation I think it would be useful to deal with it as a series of small propositions, each backed by evidence, with no need for any innovations and then if NickW wants to dispute any of them (e.g. Peoples Global Action made a decision to invite fascists to take part in their conferences can be checked by looking at the Jajinci Minutes and when every one can see that this part of the story is verified, we can then move onto the next item which we can all agree on.Harrypotter 01:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Help a guy out![edit]

Hey everyone. User:Mujinga has asked me for some help resolving the content dispute currently ongoing with regard to this article. I've reviewed everything I can find here on WP regarding this article and the underlying topics, as I am very much unfamiliar with the topics at hand. I'm still left a little clueless on certain things, and I hope that by the time we're done, that won't be the case for anyone reading this article! I've looked at various diffs of edits made by the 3 principal disagreeing editors; honestly, I don't think we're all too far apart and I think this can be resolved amicably and fairly all-around. As above though, I have quite a few questions that I hope everyone can help answer. Please answer underneath each question using indenting (*:) so I can keep everything straight.

Hi bbatsell - thanks for your help here - my answers are below. NickW 15:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • My understanding is that LARC is primarily a building available to various social activist groups. It is owned by a legally-recognized company (possibly created solely for legal reasons). Is this company not-for-profit (or the equivalent in the UK)?
  • I'd say that's fairly accurate. LARC was created to provide space and resources to groups and individuals who wish to take direct action and run campaigns on a variety of ecological and social justice issues. The groups listed on the LARC website give a clear indication of the politics etc.. The decision to create a company to run the building side of LARC was pragmatic and reflected the need for legality (to ensure the relative security and permanence of the space). I was one of the founding 'directors' but don't think I am now - I say think because this whole side of it has never interested any of us - in fact it's been a pain! It's also entails personal risk for obvious reasons. The company is not-for-profit, and in fact makes no profits. None of the directors have ever - or will ever - benefit financially from LARC. User:Harrypotter, and were not involved in setting up LARC, and joined in after the above structure had been created. NickW 15:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
There is contradictorty information about whether LARC Ltd owns the building or not. For the purposes of the Land registry it does, but for the purposes of the accounts lodged at Company House. I do not see why anyone creates a limited company except for pragmatic and legal reasons to protect the personal risk of directors, so that is not really an issue. What NickW seems to have trouble realising is that the purpose of the legislations is to protect the public from unscrupulous practices, and no doubt all business people find carrying out their responsibilities a pain. The prime purpose of limited companies is to limit the liabilities of entrepreneurs who use them for business purposes. In exchange for this limited liability, companies are required to make certain information about themselves available to the public. This information is filed at Companies House. The timing and presentation of the information is governed by law. (Company limited by guarantee). What does this mean in practice? That if a disaster happened - a fire or a tile dlipping from the roof and injurying someone, and if for any reason this eventuality was not covered by the insurance, then who couyld the injured party claim against? The company. And if the company has limited assets, these would be easily swallowed up by a compensation claim which might run into £100,000s. Of course if the substantial capital - perhaps worth £500,000 - is included in the accounts, the injured person might be able to receive some sort recompense commesurate with their injury. Another issue is that as the property has gained substantially in value, who will gain the profits gained from selling it. (this is unlikely to happen until the building work across teh road is complete, substabntially gentrifying the area. Of course, NickW is quite right that the directors -as directors would not benefit. But this does not mean that the person/persons who will might not be directors. Obviously having people with little interest in their responsibilities, also means that people like NickW might simply have the wool pulled over their eyes.Harrypotter 20:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • What is the company's operating structure? Does it have a board or CEO? What is its source of funding?
  • The whole company structure is essentially as minimal as it can be - just enough to file the required annual report with companies house etc... Everone involved in setting up LARC and creating the company did so on a voluntary basis - which is how we worked in RTS and anti-roads protests etc.. in the UK. The use of LARC is determined by LARCs users in a monthly meeting - but I should stress that this does fall within the guidelines of LARC as a whole i.e. LARC isn't a free-for-all (as User:Harrypotter, and disovered). Funding is minimal - and tbh I'm not sure it's entirely relevant for a Wikipedia article - but there are sympathetic charitable groups who have donated funds ad hoc to LARC and the groups involved over the years. NickW 15:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The company has a board whose meetings are not publicised. It is not a registered charity and is not regulated in any way. Whilst day-to-day management has largely been determined at monthly meetings, questions of building ownership and who gains from the free labour given to improve the building is something which is not available at these meetings. These meetings function more as focus group meetings. The building was bought by one individual who remains of paramount importance in the running of teh building.Harrypotter 20:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Are its facilities available to anyone or any group, or must they go through a formal or informal process to be given access?
  • LARC is open to anyone who shares LARC aims and methods. Access is semi-formal via the monthly users group meeting - but well-known faces / groups who have worked with other people at LARC may forgo this process.NickW 15:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The nature of these aims and methods and the gap between what is professed and the reality are the issue here.Harrypotter 20:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • What comprises its facilities? How significant is the library to it and its functions? Does it still operate as an anti-systemic library?
  • LARC has meeting spaces, banner-making space, office space with networked PCs, and a library. The library is important. The main involvement of User:Harrypotter was in the LARC library - but it's status as the utterly un-notable anti-systemic library was not well-recieved and after User:Harrypotter was excluded the library became more conventional in its organisation - i.e. you can now find what you want. NickW 15:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The anti-systemic library is continuing to grow through [1]. According to the website 20:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • LARC functions as an infopoint for PGA. The best explanation is [here]. NickW 15:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Well perhaps this self-description is not the best description. It is not always wise to take the promotional material of political groups at face value. Peoples' Global Action contains more critical material, in particular concerning institutional racism and fascist infiltration of the PGA. LARC has been particularly involved not merely in the developmenmt of the PGA in Europe in general, but also in protecting the involvement of fascists in the PGA, and the attempt to cover this up.Harrypotter 20:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I feel that User:Harrypotter, and are misrepresenting LARC, partly as a result of their exclusion (note the difference in User:Harrypotters edits before and after this), and as part of a wider attempt to misrepresent the PGA and various anarchist / direct action groups / events they dislike. I find it hard to believe what they say is taken seriously - much of it is not rational, and most of it cannot be verified. It's also obvious that they create material specifically to support their claims - the nature of the web and wikis specifically facilitates this. As you can see from the history of the debate on this page and related, both User:Harrypotter, and rarely provide direct answers, preferring tangents and obfuscation. You will also see from my User_talk:NickW some of the uncivil comments I've recieved. Lastly - if they're so keen on naming people and their roles - maybe they should give us their real names too? Then you can go Google them. NickW 15:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • While this process is still ongoing I have two more points to make - firstly, I think the LARC article and this discussion has now gone well beyond the bounds of Wikipedia guidelines. User:Harrypotter, and are clearly using Wikipedia as a platform, instead of contributing to it as the collaborative encyclopaedia it is. Secondly, LARC on Wikipedia is currently ranked third in a Google search for 'London Action Resource Centre' - given the current state of the article (I'm refraining from editing it for the time being) User:Harrypotter, and must be pretty pleased with their successful misrepresentation. How many more ridiculous syllogisms does this article have to suffer? NickW 10:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The interpretation of these hallmarks however has been the subject of controversy, especially in Europe, since the 2004 European PGA conference in Jajinci, Belgrade where it was suggested that "a fascist coming as an interested individual, respecting the hallmarks and whose behaviour during the conference was fine wouldn't be a problem."[4]. Although a rider was subsequently added, this controversy has been further fuelled by the sympathies held by Leonid Savin (the co-ordinator of the Ukraine PGA info-point) with politics of Alexander Dugin. After Savin was shown to be an activist associated with the Eurasia Party, the PGA Ukraine info-point was removed from the PGA website.[5]. See also National anarchism. This is verified information. Just as much as NickW has a problem taking his public responsibilities as a director seriously, he also has difficulties dealing with his political responsibilities. e.g. when the PGA says that would welcome interested fascists, this is collusion with fascism. Now, User_talk:NickW appears to reject the No Platform position, and may well be completely comfortable with Leonid Savin's infiltration of the PGA, and when he says he does not think this is taken seriously it is unclear whether he means that he does not think collusion with fascists is important or not, or whether he is engaged in a cover up which certain elements within the PGA are engaged in.

Having cleared up these points, I shall be happy to return to the issues raised above in the section on 2004 controversy - soon, but not tonight. I am too tired.Harrypotter 20:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think if these things are cleared up, I'll have a much better grasp of where we should go from here and what we can do to expand the article and make it as NPOV as possible. Warmest regards, —bbatsell ¿? 02:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all the responses so far; I've been hoping that would participate and respond so we can all work together to come to a consensus. I'll post on his talk page to encourage discussion and wait a bit longer before we move on. —bbatsell ¿? 17:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
apologies for the delay. To claim that LARC is open for groups supporting this or that political perspective, position, strategy or tactic is just untrue because LARC is part of the London convener of the Peoples' Global Action - see that page for ongoing debates around its functioning as an organised Bakuninist "invisible dictatorship". User:NickW is a director of LARC and therefore totally and hoplessely biased on this (note his/her/whatever's total silent on this issue!) - i suppose it is top be expected, i mean the guy claims to be a pirate FFS!!! sorry, but i really am fed up of the personal abuse this guy's been slinging at me, not to mention Harry, on this page. 02:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the problem is that everyone involved has some pretty clear biases, but each is thinking that they do not. You do. And to the point on whether NickW has been open about his position, he has been remarkably forthright. "Silent" is not how I would describe it. I'm not sure why you're lying through your teeth at this point in the discussion, but it does make me wonder what your agenda is.
As to your comment on content, it is undisputed that LARC is an infopoint for PGA. Is it your position that functioning as an infopoint precludes them from providing their services to any other groups? Or is your position that they do not provide their services to all groups? The text that you keep reverting does not assert that they accept groups indiscriminately, so I'm trying to figure out what your complaint is, because it is far from clear. —bbatsell ¿? 03:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not claiming to be unbiased, just that i am not implicated as suggested by NickW. Furthermore I stated that NickW has been silent on the issue of his directorship. If i am incorrect i apologise. Where have I lied? Your wondering about agendas does not really indicate much good faith. You are however correct that the text i removed does not make clear what the criteria is for selection of groups. It is not 'non hierarchical organisation' neither is it 'direct' or 'radical' action on ecological issues. It is based on their inclusion in the PGA. 03:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
So your position is that LARC only admits groups that have association with the PGA, if I understand correctly. Can you cite a source for that? Thanks, —bbatsell ¿? 03:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
No i have no source, that's just my biased view, as i am critical of bakunism and invisible dictatorship. that's the programme of the PGA and LARC 04:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Misleading text and 'original research'[edit]

I've removed the text re: LARC as a company - LARC is a centre and space NOT a company - although a company sharing the name was set-up to oversee practical and legal aspects of maintaining the building. It's misleading to suggest the centre is run as, or is, a 'company'. In addition, the notion that LARC is some kind of undisclosed asset in the records at Companies House is at best original research and at worst an attempt to discredit the centre. The above efforts to find a resolution seem to have stalled - I'm not sure what happens next - but I'll be actively seeking to maintain the accuracy of the article from now on. NickW 17:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

i agree with your edit, but i don't think the efforts towards resolution have stalled - rather they are just moving slowly. i have confidence in bbatsell to find a fitting solution Mujinga 22:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Fingers crossed then! NickW 09:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I have undone your vandalism - the references are there and this is not a promotional advertisement for your company nick 01:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Your reliance on Wikipedians gullibility is plumbing new depths. I'll continue to maintain the accuracy of this article. NickW 09:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


I hope I have made the relationship between LARC and LARC Ltd clearer. It seems that NickW does understand why people set up companies, but then says it is misleading to say so in the case of LARC. This IS misleading. I also note that he has started examining the notion that LARC is some kind of undisclosed asset in the records at Companies House, and while I think that this is an important political step for him and I hope he continues with more original research in this direction. But as that notion has not been included in edits of the text, perhaps he would do better discuss the issue with the LARC directors.Harrypotter 19:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted Harrypotter's edit - as I've explained above it's inaccurate and misleading to suggest LARC is a company in the sense he suggests. NickW 21:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I've restored Harry's additional information regarding organisational structure. also added 'claims to support' to function section. also added some info on the antisystemic library/ wez split. 02:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I have had to restore it again. Clearly, LARC Ltd is a company exactly as suggested - i.e. limited by guarantee, and this is referenced to the documents at Companies House. If NickW can show evidence that the directors shirk their duties, otherwise I am afraid it is just original research and so not acceptable on wikipedia. So, for instance, the failure to display the Company info at the registered address may well be something cited by NickW in defense of his viewpoint, and although this maybe something he has seen with his own eyes, it would be original research, unless he could cite someone else mentioning it. I hope this is helpful.Harrypotter 18:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Unfortuantely NickW has taken to doing reverts without responding to items on this page. Certainly his point about clarifying the difference between LARC and LARC Ltd has been dealt with. Perhaps NickW might care to explain his view of the manner in which LARC is a limited company as is clearly the case.Harrypotter 20:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Tax avoidance[edit]

It just crossedmy mind that we might be able to introduce something about tax avoidance. The Guardian mentioned this in relation to te Vestey family here and it might further clarify what is going on wit this building. However I would be very wary about introducing the notion of tax evasion, not because I think it is untrue, but because it would involve originalresearch.Harrypotter 09:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Fascist-- infiltration of PGA[edit]

Unfortunately the infiltration was far from "theoretical".Harrypotter 13:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Got any sources for that assertion? MujingaMujinga 08:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey you should check the LARC people they know all about it! Or check Savin's web page: March 8-9, 2003 . Visit to Dijon (France) for unofficial meeting of PGA net. Then check What really happened at the PGA Europe Wintermeeting and see that by becoming an infopoint, Savin gained access to admin password of the PGA website. Bearing in mind the PGA had previously had problems with race issues in the USA, new right infiltration was not a new phenomena, and when we read how the whole affair is dominated by Europeans, one can be forgiven for wondering whether the new Right infiltrators consider the PGA fertile ground for their way of thinking, don't you think?Harrypotter 22:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems that Mujinga and others do not quite understand how to proceed in wikipedia. Mujinga first asks for sources, but then contines to remove material when the sources have been added. Surely no-one really doubts that the fascist infiltration happened within the PGA? But I have noticed that some people from within the PGA have been steadily removing pages which have been cited, in an endeavour to cover-up this problem. Of course, this has often proved counter-productive as the material can then be sourced elsewhere. It merely shows the level of dishonesty these people have in trying to cover up the problem, as opposed to dealing with it. Unfortunately the clash which occurred at LARC touches upon this desire to cover-up the problems,and I must admit it is sometimes hard to keep the assumption of good faith when Mujinga and even Wnjr act in such a way. Harrypotter 17:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It's clear you are not acting in good faith in introducing materially which even if it were verifiable would belong in the PGA article, and for which the sources include your own website, which does not in my view come anywhere close to meeting the requirements of WP:RS.
Wnjr 11:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to spend a little longer grasping what the term good faith actually means. The references provided take us to

a) the positions of the West Essex Zapatista Are you disputing that this gives a good account of those positions?
b)Savin at Dugin's Boot camp Are you disputing that this is Leonid Savin?
c) Savin's involvement with the PGA Are you disuting that Leonid Savin was involved with the PGA?
d) Infopoint in Sumy Are you disputing there ever was an info point in Sumy?
e) Giving of admin passwords to PGA info-points Are you disputing that the meeting Savin attend was significant?

Now, I have explained the difficulties I am experiencing in keeping the assumption of good fait. Where references have been asked for, they have been supplied. However, you continue to quibble. If you have any problem with the above points please can you be specfic, rather than just removing material which helps thereader understand what LARC is actually about? Thank you.Harrypotter 16:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

None of these are suitable for an encyclopaedia, nor is your original research, and those points aside none of it helps the reader understand LARC since all are points about the PGA.
Wnjr 09:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

i know it's pretty pointless trying to engage in reasoned debate with harrypotter or from prior experience (and i see now both have also been busy on a similar sort of disruptive vibe on the Peoples' Global Action page), so let me just say here to harrypotter that all i meant in asking for reliable sources was for you to back up your assertions with reliable sources, something i am tempted to think that you are unable to do ... or else you would do it. Mujinga 00:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You haven't even tried to debate anything. all you've done is questioned sources which have been provided. Please explain your problem with the sources provided. 06:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please check Talk:Anarchism#Culling the source-spam befor adopting an unwise position which you will sooner or later have to relinquish. Yes of course we have to be very careful not to late any innovations of original research in. But you know all you have to do is post a query on this page, and then we will find a source. So with the recent deletion, it was not hard to show that far from being original research the material was in the public domain. The problem with your propensity to delete material. Also the point here is about LARC and developments within the collective which both influenced the PGA, but also influenced by the PGA. Of course the references are going to come from various sources: LARC website, PGA website, Dugin's Eurasian website, the ainfoswebsite, Savin's website, the anti-systemic website each a suitable source for the relevant piece of information.Harrypotter 18:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing in the cited article which supports your position. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. By insisting that only facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher may be published in Wikipedia, the no-original-research and verifiability policies reinforce one another." seems particularly apposite.
You (re-)added the following text
"by the Reclaim the Streets faction centred around Mark Brown"
but the cited references do not mention him at all, so please do not reinsert this without providing a source.
Wnjr 12:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite no what to say, when a refrence is supplied Company House Records does supply just such a reference.Harrypotter 21:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Companies House links are not persistent, so it's impossible for anybody else to know which page you are linking to, I find it an absurd suggestion that this is the source of your assertion about a "Reclaim the Streets faction". Can you quote the relevant passage from the Companies House page?
Wnjr 19:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
The link is there, it just needs to be checked during Companies House opening hours. also, please provide reasons for removing sources for fascist infiltration of pga which is the topic of this discussion thread!!! In order to compromise i have restored only the link for fascist inclusion, which is undisputed as yet. 23:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
No, companies house links only work temporarily the long hex part (e.g. 68cefa6b98ae3e476295d1ac3540d17f) is a session key not a reference to a specific page/document. As I stated above the material regarding the PGA belongs in the PGA article, and the provided sources are not reliable, for both these reasons the material should not be reinserted.
Wnjr 14:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

History of the project[edit]

I've removed the grossly inaccurate and POV text from this section. Harrypotter and (aka West Essex Zapatista) were expelled because they were disruptive energy vampires - see the previous talk pages for the LARC article for more details if you have the time to spare. The notion that there was some kind of fascist-aristocracy conspiracy is nuts. NickW 08:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to say confronted by NickW strange comment above. There is no mention of any "fascist-aristocracy conspiracy".If NickW thinks that the expulsions where because people were disruptive energy vampires, perhaps he would like to explainwhether this original research or whether it can be backed up with references. Also I feel it would be advisable if he and others checked Types of vandalism where "blanking" is described as vandalism. It remains a sad but true fact that not only was the PGA successfully infiltrated by the far right in America in 1999, but that it was also infiltarted by Leonid Savin in 2003/5. Unfortunately NickW's comments reflect a continuing problem which some political elements have with this, a problem which can only fuel the contention that the West Essex Zapatista were correct in identifying institutional racism as a problem within the LArc and London PGA milieu. Perhaps a more self-critical approach might help NickW and others grasp the full import of teh views they put forward.Harrypotter 12:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
"However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary."
NickW has already explained at length why your opinion of LARC is not suitable material for an encyclopaedia article.

Perhaps a more self-critical approach might help

Troll heal thyself.
Wnjr 14:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Please re-read the discussion and do not remove any text without giving proper reasons. All sources for WEZ opposition to fascist inflirtation of PGA nad institutional racism at LARC are verifiable. 04:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I chose the words 'fascist-aristocracy' partly for satirical reasons (if I don't at least try and make this entertaining for myself then I'd probably have given up a long time ago) and because you insist on identifying LARC with 1) the ancestry of one member, and 2) a far right / PGA conspiracy. I chose the words 'disruptive energy vamprires' because this is an accurate description of WEZ at LARC. NickW 09:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
None of this explains your vandalism and lies. In fact it is offensive. Please make proper arguments and keep your entertainment and offensive allegations to yourself or to other places more appropriate. this is not the place for it and it is not welcome here. 10:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
It is not a matter of associating LARC with the ancestry of anyone. It is a matter of mentioning who set LARC up. Of the directors, Mark Brown is the only notable person. (Also I think it would be wrong to describe him as coming from the aristocracy, when he would be better described as coming from the bourgeoisie. But this is perhaps beside the point as the disputed entries make mention of neither his ancestry nor his wealth.) If you feel any of the other directors are notable, then you would have an argument for adding their name? And again there is no mention of any conspiracy (but perhaps this is something you know more about than I), but merely a taking of political position. Some people have a No Platform position, others feel comfortable about inviting fascists to be involved in their political organisations. The fact is that the West Essex Zapatista upheld a No Platform position in the face of the decision made at the PGA Belgrade conference to open their doors to fascists, and that this led to their expulsion. Another fact is that following criticism from groups like De Fabel van de illegaal, those in London PGA and LARC were well aware of issues of left-right convergence, even if they chose to ignore such issues. In fact, from the reference to institutional racism, it is quite apparent that WEZ have made no such charges, but rather focussed on a collective failure which "can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness, and racist stereotyping which disadvantages minority ethnic people." Whether the consistent removal of material from the PGA website (e.g. PGA latin american process, Extensive discussion by De Fabel van de illegaal and PGA, the crisis of the Left, and the PGA manifesto constitutes a conspiracy or not, is another matter, which anyway has not been raised as an issue on the LARC page. Naturallywe have done our best to discourage the repeated deletion of relevant material from the page, and have rightly raised concern that it may reflect a similar desire to cover up an ill-judged decision made by LARC. Of course, you are entitled to view of WEZ as 'disruptive energy vampires' but I don't know in what way it serves to help the discussion, aside from discrediting you and your argument, and fuelling concern that you are completely indifferent to questions of institutional racism and fascist infiltration (which again is a fact as regards Leonid Savin's involvement with the PGA). Sorry to go on at such length, but your woolley thinking involves such a range of confusion, that I felt you would appreciate help in unpicking these issues.Harrypotter 15:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


A speedy was placed on this article, but of course I declined to delete it, as speedy is not intended to solve an editing dispute. If there is any possible controversial element to the deletion of an article, and the article talk page for London Action Resource Centre makes it clear that there will be, the method to use is AfD,

It would be much better to agree on an acceptable article. Use WP:3O if you think it appropriate. If the article does go to afd, please realize on all sides that ideological arguments over the nature and purpose of the center are not likely to be looked on with favor.
as further advice, if the building is notable by itself, try to write an article on it. DGG (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate deletion of material without discussion[edit]

It is unfortunate that once again we are faced by the inappropriate deletion of material (which has been duely referenced, without any discussion on this page. We have only recently emerged from the frozen page situation, and it seems that hopes that NickW had evolved a better understanding of how things work on wikipedia had little basis. If anyone can help NickW in this respect, it would be much appreciated.Harrypotter 14:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You've consistently ignored the comments here, and continued to reinsert your original material without reliable sources which even if it were encyclopaedic would belong in the PGA article, please refrain from reinserting this inappropriate content.
Wnjr 10:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
It is not a matter of ignoring the comments here, indeed when asked for reliable sources these been supplied. Of course relevant matewrial has been provided to the PGA page, however these matters relate specifically to LARC which is why they are included here. Also the secondary suggestion that it is a matter of personal disputes is clearly misguided. When dealing with issues of institutional racism etc. these are clearly not personal issues, even if there are those whio seek to protect such practices by personalising the issues.Harrypotter 13:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the notability in the current version of the article or the history - do proper sources exist for this article ? if not, it's off to AFD. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
As sources have been provided for the article, it would be pertinent to explain why you regard the sources referred to as insufficient. If you regard the pafge as unnotable, then it should be up for deletion. If you regard it as notable, then clear the question of anarcho-racism should be included. Perhaps you could explain exactly what your concerns are, which could hav ebeen done before calling the cavalry!Harrypotter (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
They are all descriptive - they don't provide any evidence of notability, just that *something* exists - the only one that does is about the building not the group so it's meaningless in that context. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Further to my point:

1) A descriptive mission statement taken from the ARC website - no evidence of notability presented, not independent of the article subject.

2) Company details - no evidence of notability presented, just evidence that a holding company exists.

3) Land registry details - no evidence of notability presented, just evidence that a form has been filed.

4) A descriptive history taken from the ARC website - no evidence of notability presented, not independent of the article subject.

5) A list of previous events taken from the ARC website - no evidence of notability presented, not independent of the article subject.

6) A book about the history of the usage of the building - irrelevant in establishing the notability of article subject, which is not the building but the group currently using it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your swift response.As those references are to specific points in the article, notability is not the issue, but how they support what is being said. I notice that you have put the Cowley Club up for deletion. Whilst I haven't looked into your arguments for that, it would seem that that might be a clearer way of expressing your concerns about notability, rather than getting caught up in the details of the page. Then we can discuss that, if that is your central bone of contention.Harrypotter (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't understand what you mean? you agree the page isn't notable and I should AFD it? --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't understand your point. No, it's not that I think that LARC is non-notable, but that appeared to be the direction of your argument but not the course of action you advocated. It is the subject of the page which should be notable, not the references which give information about it is my point.05:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
You understand that when I put "no evidence of notability presented", I'm not commented on the reference? I'm actually saying "no evidence of notability presented" for the article subject. Looking at your history, you've been here a while, I find it slightly odd, that I'm having to explain this to you... you seem to fundamentally misunderstand how the use of references provide notability to the subject of an article. Let me try another example
I exist - there is a birth certificate with my name and date of birth on it. I live in my house - I own the deeds to it. I own a car - I have the ownership papers. All of those sources provide evidence that a) I exist or b) my interaction with other objects - they don't provide any evidence that *I* am notable. That is the problem with the references that currently exist in the article - they provide evidence that something exists, they don't provide evidence it is notable. Do you understand the difference? Cameron Scott (talk) 10:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Cameron, if you read here the whole sorry saga of the slowburning edit war on this page, then i think you will get your answer. Further, i think that LARC deserves a page but not this one, which is rubbish. I would support taking it to AfD. Mujinga (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Cameron, thanks for your explanation. You are completely right - I do understand that when you put "no evidence of notability presented", you are not commenting on the reference. However, as I indicated above, when you actual say "no evidence of notability presented", "no evidence of notability presented" it would seem pertinent to post the article for deletion, colloquially known as AfD. However, as you might note, the page has been protected until disputes have been resolved. This actually prevents the AfD process from commencing via the normal means of tagging the page with an AfD template. I have to admit I am in complete ignorance as regards how someone - such as yourself or myself - might get that process underway why the page is protected. If you can use your superior experience to lead us in that direction, then lead on MacDuff.Harrypotter (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The property asset and the company[edit]

Research at the Land Registry and Companies House has shown the owner of 62 Fieldgate Street (with no charges on its title, so the asset is not mortgaged) to be Fieldgate Action Resource Centre Limited, company number 3836799, a company incorporated on 3 September 1999 which changed its name to London Action Resource Centre Limited on 5 February 2004. Curiously the number of that company as registered at Companies House is 3836099. Never mind the presence or absence of an initial 0 in the number, which relates only to the fact that Companies House uses an 8-digit number in the anticipation that all 8 will be needed some day. There seems to have been an error in the recording of the company's number when the title to the property at 62 Fieldgate was registered. There is no currently active company with the number 3836799... Explanation anyone? (talk) 10:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

That we don't engage in original research and don't care? This isn't 221b baker street. I am going to get this article unlocked and then I'm going to AFD it. The sources are crap. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
You are talking for yourself, so the royal 'we' is inappropriate. I do a lot of original research (life would be very boring without it), and in the present context I think some of it is relevant to the discussion of what to do about this article. As things stand, I will probably support your AFD motion, but will have to watch for what turns up. (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually I'm am using the royal we in this case (or rather the wikipedian version) - original research(and I agree life would be boring without it) is strictly prohibited in wikipedia article and any conclusions obtained from original research cannot be used. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I realised that. But an explanation of the fact unearthed by my original research might (or might not) be able to facilitate the unearthing of facts which are gettable not only through original research but also elsewhere, e.g. which may, for all any of us know, have been discussed in obscure but nonetheless reliable secondary sources. Therefore I believe it is of possible relevance to the discussion here on the talk page. Conclusions obtained from original research can be used if it is then realised that they are obtainable elsewhere. The 'error' in the registered title to the Whitechapel property gives food for thought in the context of the fact that the property is not listed as an asset in the company's accounts, and also the Guardian article on Vestey family tax avoidance. (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of Vandalism[edit]

Editor User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry has taken it upon themselves to seal the page on the grounds of "vandalism", but has failed to show that there has been any vandalism. I am concerned that Editor User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry may be behaving inappropriately, and would like to know where I could get more opinions on this. Harrypotter (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)