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

[peter]

On 20/02/15 21:45, Chris Agocs wrote:
> Cut your losses and move on.

But then they'll continue to bully other members, and no progress will 
be made.
(I am certainly not the only member they've bullied)

>
> On Fri Feb 20 2015 at 3:04:57 PM peter <phm at riseup.net 
> <mailto:phm at riseup.net>> wrote:
>
>
>     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:
>     https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/london-hack-space/Io8vDQvaT84
>     <https://groups.google.com/forum/#%21topic/london-hack-space/Io8vDQvaT84>
>
>     Notification of a second formal warning for Peter Meadows:
>     https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/london-hack-space/7WE1zuRWKbk
>     <https://groups.google.com/forum/#%21topic/london-hack-space/7WE1zuRWKbk>
>
>     Fwd: Re: Your first formal warning:
>     https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/london-hack-space/bDlpFC6Lg2o
>     <https://groups.google.com/forum/#%21topic/london-hack-space/bDlpFC6Lg2o>
>
>     Fwd: Re: Your behaviour in IRC:
>     https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/london-hack-space/uNFjdFI7tmY
>     <https://groups.google.com/forum/#%21topic/london-hack-space/uNFjdFI7tmY>
>
>
>     Thread about my food getting chucked in the bin:
>     https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/london-hack-space/E4Gom_ave4c
>     <https://groups.google.com/forum/#%21topic/london-hack-space/E4Gom_ave4c>
>
>     (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 'it':
>     https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/london-hack-space/gFJpT3zPj3c
>     <https://groups.google.com/forum/#%21topic/london-hack-space/gFJpT3zPj3c>
>
>
>
>     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."
>
>     And:
>
>     " 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."
>
>     And:
>
>     "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:
>     https://london.hackspace.org.uk/organisation/docs/articles.pdf
>
>
>     https://wiki.london.hackspace.org.uk/view/Organisation
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Discuss mailing list
>     Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org <mailto:Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org>
>     http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org
> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.hackerspaces.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20150220/86d14eb7/attachment-0001.html>