[hackerspaces] Leadership abusing powers. Bullying. Extraordinary General Meetings.

peter phm at riseup.net
Fri Feb 20 21:56:51 CET 2015

Does anyone have advice/experience with the leadership abusing their 
powers, doing unconstitutional/unethical things? (specifically: bullying 
members with mental 'abnormalities').

What happened? Did anyone try to stop it? Has anyone ever called an EGM 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_general_meeting) about it?

I'm attempting to do this at London Hackspace.

Grievance Procedure Update - Peter Meadows banned for one year:

Notification of a second formal warning for Peter Meadows:

Fwd: Re: Your first formal warning:

Fwd: Re: Your behaviour in IRC:

Thread about my food getting chucked in the bin:

(I suspect this was done by a 'trustee' as revenge for me suggesting 
'doorbot' should
not be blaring out loud music into the space every 5 minutes. (although 
nobody has owned up to doing it, (despite other members insisting that 
it was not a mistake, and it was done with the best interests of the 
space at heart)):

Thread in which I'm accused of 'de-humanising' the cleaner by calling it 

I think they invented the stuff about IRL harassment because they would 
look silly banning me just for supposed 'trolling'. (I was NOT 'trolling').

There is CCTV in the space, so we can determine very easily if I was 
'following' people around. They refuse to give any details about what 
the CCTV shows.
They refuse to give any details about the nature of the real life 
harassment. I can provide many witnesses that spent time with me day to 
day in the space, and that will testify that I have not harassed anyone.

David Potocnik writes:

" Anyway, I've been linked to this discussion and I can't see a very 
descriptive account of what actually happened. "Harassment" can be a 
number of things and it is also perceived/felt (right?), so I suggest 
being more expressive."


" This is the second example of somebody being banned for other people
finding them "annoying". With anonymity, the trustees become an
arbiter of good taste (TM) at their own discretion, possibly backed up
by howling wolves. Fine. I'm sure the Trustees are aware of the
problems in both historic examples of various annoyances to
"civility", and on the other side a modern trend in false harassment
accusations. (Even if this is not the case here).

This was actually apparent in the linked "it" email oncleaning. Peter
was accused of "dehumanizing" (morally bad!) acleaner. But when I
read into it, what I saw was him/it playing an (annoying) semantic
game: idea of doing away with normal conception of "human person". As
I read it, this is only "insulting" if you read it through your own
moral lens, the proper one. He/it wasn't being selectively
"dehumanizing" either.
For me it was an example of this person's somewhat annoying and
non-constructive behaviour, as much as general cultural hegemony."


"Guys, restating, I am not - or was not - agitating on anyone's behalf.
Related, nothing is being put "up for debate", though things are
freely debated. (Etc. A careful reader might have found more worrying
cues in follow up responses to my last one.)"

Then they accuse him of 'agitating' on my behalf.

So clearly anyone that speaks up in my favour is going to get bullied 
like this.

They are now censoring my list posts, so I have no way to respond to the 
false allegations.

London Hackspace Ltd Articles of Association:


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.hackerspaces.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20150220/f8545a66/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Discuss mailing list