Reading time: 39 minutes
CW: sexual violence, suicide, misogyny, abuse apologism, TJ
Hello, my name is Soba (previously Lewis) and in this article I want to talk about accountability and my experience working with the UK Anarchist Federation, the organiser known as ‘Rev’, and the accusations of sexual violence and abuse apologism that follow him.
This intro and the closing remarks should be enough to get the gist of it, but if you want the full story and receipts, read on.
While I was still in the Anarchist Federation, I looked into these claims and in this article I will present the information I gathered. Deeper analysis (because there’s so much to go through and it can get quite confusing) will be presented in future articles. This is a simplified version of events shown from my perspective.
It is my belief that the conclusions of the investigations by both the IWW and the Anarchist Federation into the accusations that follow Rev are worthless. ‘Investigation’ as the first step in the process of accountability is problematic and likely based on a bad political understanding of accountability and anarcho-feminist politics. But as a feminist, I believe in believing survivors first and foremost. Both the local IWW and the AF concluded that there was ‘no case to answer’ after their investigations, but all their findings indicate is that nobody wanted to engage in their flawed ‘processes’. There are myriad good reasons why a survivor might not want to engage in one, especially something labelled an ‘investigation’.
Therefore, they do not prove his innocence.
Instead, I focused on the hostile reaction to Rev that the anarchist scene in South Wales had, and continues to have, after he was accused of sexual assault by someone within that scene. Their reaction is a potential model of how to achieve the goals of ejecting abusers and rapists from our movements when our organisations fail us.
I believe the story I am about to tell you serves as a case study for the failures of anarchism here and abroad to adequately address problems of sexual violence and accountability, and that those problems are part of the patriarchal norms that many people hold within themselves, whether they realise it or not.
Who is ‘Rev’?
Rev, also known as Seditionist, Rhyddical, or Peter Ó Máille, is a long-standing member of the Anarchist Federation (AF). He primarily does admin work, but is involved or in control of most of what the AF does. He is also the editor of Organise! Magazine, a member of the London Anarchist Bookfair Collective, and runs Seditionist Distro. He’s been around in the scene for quite a long time. The accusations against him swirl around every so often, but they date back to when he was part of anarchist groups in South Wales and the local IWW between at least 2012 and 2018.
Getting ahead of the accusations
During my first foray into anarchism after the 2020 George Floyd uprising in the US, I joined a Discord server called ‘Organise’. The admin of that server was Seditionist (who I’d later learn was Rev) and he put on a monthly reading group. It was there that I met some people and made friends, until eventually I joined the AF after a friend did the same and encouraged me to do so as well. After some time I became friendly with Rev too.
Before I heard anything about the accusations, Rev made sure to stay ahead of them and volunteered his own version of events. He said there were allegations against him, but that these were actually untrue and part of a campaign of abuse against him, done to ‘fuck with him mentally’ by vindictive, lying, assholes.
As someone new to anarchism, I didn’t have much context for anything like this. But, from an early stage, I started to notice and identify problems going on in the scene and I became strongly interested in accountability and Transformative Justice (TJ). When you first get involved in anarchism, it can be quite overwhelming with everyone telling you; that guy’s an abuser, this org is bad, accountability this, restorative justice that, x is carceral and y is liberal. As I learned more, Rev and I would clash frequently on these topics, which led me to eyeing him with a degree of scepticism, but I was the inexperienced one.
There was a small group of us newbies at the time, travelling around to lots of places, spreading the good word of anarchism etc. I won’t talk about this too much because it’s only tangentially relevant, but Rev’s style of organising was invasive. He’d pressure you into doing stuff, get mad at you for doing things incorrectly and basically nothing I was doing in the AF happened without his oversight. Only after leaving and organising with other people did I realise how toxic it was.
Looking into the allegations
But one day a comrade (who shall remain nameless) went to a counter-demo in Cardiff and it was there that they heard about the accusations against Rev, that he had sexually assaulted someone. They came to me to talk about it, for which I am grateful (I don’t know where you are now, but I hope it’s a better place than a couple of years ago). I tried to deal with things as best I could, having some hope that the AF was an organisation capable of holding its members accountable (I was wrong). So I tried to get the process started by emailing Bristol AF and London AF asking for further context and info.
Bristol AF were relatively helpful and gave me old documents (it’s unclear when they were first created) with the information they had on their ‘investigation’ into Rev, which concluded with ‘no case to answer’ because the survivor wasn’t interested in being involved with the AF or IWW’s processes. The following are some screenshots of the reply I got from Bristol AF (it was super long and not all relevant here).
That last point is foreshadowing.
AF Notes Part Two
I was also sent this document, entitled AF Notes Part Two (I was not sent part one). It begins with these two paragraphs:
NB: I quote from AF documents and Rev throughout this article. Most are littered with spelling and grammar errors, and have been presented as is.
This was raised in the meeting, but I have kept it in a separate document to the minutes as the minutes go up on the AF discord and I those present did not think that this is the kind of thing that should automatically be shared on the discord. [Redacted] passed on this message:
Rev was a long-time member of South Wales Anarchists, and a founder of Swansea Anarchists. He attracted controversy in Swansea Anarchists by posting MRA propaganda on the Facebook page, arguing with Black people that he should be able to say the n-slur, and pushing for the group to work with the BNP. Sometime between 2015-2018, someone in South Wales Anarchists informed the group that Rev had sexually assaulted her. An accountability process took place, but Rev and his mates hijacked it and made it into a ‘Where’s-the-evidence’ ordeal. A later accountability process took place in the IWW, but it was poorly organised and never really did anything (he was made aware he was not welcome over this, accountability process failed but then a member made it clear they’d beat him up if he came back so he didn’t).
Most relevant to this article is the allegation of sexual assault made against Rev, and that he and his mates hijacked the accountability process, turning it into a “where’s-the-evidence’ ordeal”. The majority of sexual violence has little to no physical or documented evidence, and weaponising the lack of them is the go-to move of both cops when questioning survivors, and rapists when challenging allegations made against them. This is why we say “believe survivors”. Their words are evidence of sexual violence! We believe survivors to be able to accurately describe the violence done to them. The above account is evidence that Rev was accused of sexually assaulting someone in South Wales Anarchists
Based on information that will be presented further on, we can reasonably presume that the survivor then abandoned the accountability process, as is so often the case, and so now the Official Story is that there’s no merit to these claims. Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is not all that different from what happened with the SWP (Socialist Workers Party), and the infamous case of their rapist member known as ‘Comrade Delta’.
Other relevant things to this article from that document are:
Back then it was investigated by IWW for approximately a year, after which they said there was no case to answer and reinstated Rev’s suspended membership. He did quit [the IWW] due to ongoing hostility from those who raised the complaint in IWW.
First off, it’s yet more solid evidence that something took place to warrant an investigation.
The second [allegation] was an ex partner of Revs (person2)… Person2 said that they hated Rev but didn’t want any process or other formal consequences pursued.
With the addition of that quote ‘no case to answer’ is no longer the statement in favour of Rev it might first appear, but simply means the investigation wasn’t engaged with. Which, as I’ve said, there could be many good reasons for. Also, the ongoing hostility Rev faced suggests that, after the IWW’s process failed them, these anarchists (who were friends with person2) took matters into their own hands and kept Rev out with threats of violence, which is a totally valid thing to do. Perhaps that hostility was made necessary by his being reinstated and allowed back into spaces he should not have been?
NB: Throughout this article, I’ll be showing you several documents that use different naming schemes to keep people anonymous. Eventually it’ll become clear that ‘person2’ and the member of South Wales Anarchists who accused Rev of SA are almost certainly the same person. So, for simplicity’s sake, in the text of this article I’ll refer to them throughout as ‘person2’. AFNP2 also states:
Rev says that he is a survivor of abuse of multiple types at the hands of person2, and regrets being quiet about that in the aftermath.
How convenient. Let’s talk a little bit about DARVO and to help I will quote Lee Cicuta of Butch Anarchy:
DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender) is a common tactic deployed by abusers to co-opt one of the few (potential) sources of power available to the survivor — disclosure — and turn it towards their own project of coercive control. The abuser denies allegations of abuse (if any have yet been made, sometimes abusers pre-empt their victim), attacks the credibility of the survivor, and creates a narrative in which the abuser is cast as the true victim of the survivor. When some people first hear of DARVO they express concern that the reality of the tactic makes it functionally impossible to distinguish between abuser and victim, implies the presence of “mutual abuse,” or demotes the situation from abusive to simply “toxic.” With these conclusions in hand many feel as though they can safely recuse themselves from engaging with the situation entirely, thus fulfilling the abuser’s central aim in deploying DARVO as a tactic in the first place. The point of DARVO, contrary to popular belief, is not to convince but to seed doubt. The abuser does not require the surrounding community to fully and completely validate them as the true victim of the abuse, though they certainly see it as a bonus… the only thing that needs to happen for an empowered authoritarian to keep their power is for enough people to ignore it. The abuser does not need to convince everyone fully to their side: all they need are some close accomplices and for most everyone else to simply withhold action.
If the intent was to seed doubt, then Rev was successful and even managed to convince more than one AF member that he was the true survivor. The effect of which was to allow him to continue in the roles and positions of influence he holds within the organisation. Just enough doubt to withhold action is an accurate description of how the AF has thought about this. This takes power away from the act of disclosure by the people accusing him, whom he frequently disparages in order to find any angle to reduce their credibility. In his ‘The Suck’ statement (which I will talk about later) he calls DARVO a “convenient term you can use to ignore anything you want”.
The London AF email fiasco
However, compared to the apparent helpfulness of Bristol AF, the response to my email to London AF was a very different story. I got back a reply from a London AF member called Jonny.
I thanked him for passing it on to the correct email address and got this reply:
According to Jonny, the Bookfair organising group decided to keep working with Rev despite the allegations without even the smallest concern to accountability. The seriousness of this will become more evident as we continue.
Jonny’s reply was immediately followed by a long vague-post on the AF Discord from Rev (yes, the AF use Discord for organising) starting with “I’m going to do this all nice and sweetness”, followed by a rather hostile piece that followed a similar route as Rev’s previous comments to me when he had tried to get ahead of the accusations before.
![Screenshot of a Discord message posted by Rev using the username Seditionist on September 25th 2022. Hello, so... I'm going to do this all nice and sweetness and above board and with as minimal dramatics as possible. I have been informed that a comrade from the AF (who I shan't name) is going about asking people about my history and the accusations again me. I have a very real issue with sneaky unsubstantiated rumour spreading, even under the guise of "just asking" via the medium of loaded accountability language and given that someone from Cardiff IWW has recent made suggestions to both people from Bristol AF and London AF, I would prefer if we didn't do these things and were more open about it. You may not wish to ask me. but you can ask the members of Bristol AF who investigated the matter to find little to answer for. For context, A member of Swansea named R (no not the cool one), some 6 years ago. combined a 12 year old accusation of abusive behaviour and some life drama with my partner as a reason to cut me out of anarchism and spread lots of rumours. (This was support and enhanced by H, L, and others from the Goblins and general South Wales milieu) The initial accusation themselves amount to A: A difficult period with my partner where I ignorantly neglected their mental health needs due to a lack of knowledge which was misread by a local housing coop who a week later apologised and something my partner has repeatedly asked not to be included in accusations against me. B: A accusation of domestic and sexual violence from C. Upon enquiry this was "said I'll hit you" during a tickle fight and 'Was overzealous about bum stuff" which was (cringe enough) my mid-twenties post break-up (with someone else) way of saying. "I am not feeling sexual and don't want to sleep with you." Tho there is in fairness more to this as this story was regurgitated by them for other ex's, and in all honesty they may of felt these things were a threat and I feel appropriately bad about that. Tho early this year I was informed that they didn't even know the accusations spread as they did and was delighted to know it caused me severe harm. So my empathy is minimal. I have since been informed that AF have been told my friends of C that 'C doesn't care and doesn't what anything to happen." These rumours spread into accusations that I am a fascist, sexual predator. abuser of women, transphobe (hilariously enough at the same time as the ACG split) and beater and raper of (at least twice I've heard) 22 women. I honestly don't expect anyone to take my side of things, and if I'm honest that is a VERY REFINED version of the absolutely bonkers web of intrigue that went about and who said she said shit. However. all I know is that someone from Cardiff IWW levelled accusations at @unknown-role and @Active at a demo and has contacted @unknown-role about these things and now our friends in T'North. If you have any real interest, ask myself or @Active peeps (not gonna tag you specifically without permission but I think [redacted] wouldn't mind) and have an open discussion. This sneaky running about muck raking via the medium of "just asking the questions for accountability ' is some Kafkaesque bullshit and it lead to years of misery for me and I am very sad to see it brought up once more by Cardiff people, thankfully I am in a much better brain space and am able to respond better.](https://getriddical.noblogs.org/files/2025/06/Revs-Nice-and-Sweetness-Discord-Post-675x1024.png)
NB: I am aware the person mentioned under item A refutes all allegations levied against Rev relating to them. This article is explicitly not about them.
This is simply another example of Rev trying to get ahead of things, and he later told me he wanted to ‘nip this in the bud’. The post didn’t mention me by name but made allusions to me that I could easily pick up on, and the timing of it is a huge giveaway. As for it being “all nice and sweetness”, this isn’t anything of the sort. In fact, it’s downright aggressive and to say I was “sneakily running about muck raking via the medium of ‘just asking questions for accountability” takes my actions in incredibly bad faith. Equating the two is unacceptable, and so is the way he acted here.
At the time I was concerned about upsetting Rev and placated him a bit, but I shouldn’t have. He should not have had access to my inquiries and he should not have then—in so many words—told me to fuck off and stop asking questions. I can only see this as a kind of power play. It put me in an awkward situation where I could either ‘come clean’ to the rest of the membership (because Rev’s framing of what I was doing was so negative), or keep my anonymity but be unable to reply to the message on Discord. Rev’s post and its contents are the exact reasons I was asking about this privately. I had already heard Rev’s side of the story and I don’t really understand why he thought giving his version of events again was going to change my mind. I cannot trust that information. Furthermore, by emailing for clarification, I was giving him more benefit of the doubt than many other comrades would—and indeed were—willing to give him. To me, it feels like its true purpose was to dissuade further inquiry. Bristol AF emailed me after Rev’s post on Discord, assuring me that it was not they who had passed on any information. How this did not raise any red flags for them, I am not sure.
Jonny replied to me on the 24th of September, Rev posted his Discord message a day later on the 25th. I did not email anyone else, so he must have been the one to inform Rev of my inquiries. He did so without asking my consent, which serves as another example of the AF’s bad practices. With the assumption that there is or could be an abuser in the organisation and informing the accused that someone’s been asking about them puts the person making inquiries—or, more broadly, any survivors—at serious risk! And, indeed, Rev’s reaction was predictably hostile.
It turns out the real London AF had moved email providers, from afed.co.uk to one from RiseUp. Rev is the primary admin for the AF website and domain, so it’s possible that he had access to the inbox of the previous London AF email address. This demonstrates the position of power Rev has within the AF. If I had been a survivor of Rev, emailing my own organisation about my experience with him, he might have been able to see it. This dynamic already exists elsewhere as he is the admin for the AF Discord. On the Discord, we had caucuses like the Gender-Oppressed Caucus which are only for those gender oppressed. As admin, Rev is able to see all channels and all messages at all times (despite not identifying as gender-oppressed), so the intended exclusivity is partly an illusion.
The comrade who had passed on the accusation to me seemed to have little interest in what I was doing, which is fair enough. But meant I only had third-hand information to go on for the most part, which made things difficult. Regrettably, I stayed on in the AF, while trying to give Rev as wide a berth as possible (which was difficult because he’s involved in basically everything).
So at this point, it seemed like both the IWW, and the long-time members in the AF (who had literally written the accountability process) had cleared him of wrongdoing, which left me not knowing what to do next. Looking into things had been met with hostility. The accusations against Rev were floating around at the time, but this post was made directly after and obviously in direct response to my emails.
“A Kafkaesque nightmare”
This was happening around the same time a survivor had contacted London AF with allegations against a well-known anarchist (I’m not permitted to disclose them, and neither are the AF and Rev despite having done so widely). London AF dealt with it as best they could, Jonny aside, as a group they seemed to actually have a grasp on survivor-led politics. This is a very common point of contention between and within different anarchist groups. Many anarchists view survivor-led politics with scepticism if not outright disdain, including members of the AF. Whilst others—myself included—see it as a necessity.
Shortly after, I attended an AF Irregulars meeting (a group for people without a regional group) in which the others were planning on gently reminding London AF that you can’t always believe survivors and rumours, “look at what’s happened to Rev in the past!” All long-time AF members, they started talking about how we treat people accused of abuse too harshly, and that they had been accused of abuse but had been abused too. It was at this point I started to wonder if I was the only one in the meeting who hadn’t been accused of abuse. It’s a prime example of how it felt like the AF’s politics were backsliding on accountability, it seemed regressive and made me very uncomfortable.
I DMed Rev about the situation, and you can read our conversation below. I took these screenshots at the time because I was so appalled by what he said.
![Screenshot of Discord conversation between Soba and Seditionist/Rev. Soba: I'm asking if the inflammatory email was a response to an email Freedom (that I haven't) on their approach to [redacted]. Seditionist: I assume it was a response to the email Freedom sent AF and London AF about their decision and intentions, specifically to end the airing of [redacted], which in turn was response to an email from "A London Based Feminist Collective" where they said, [redacted] shouldn't be told because the survivor has not wanted to do so. Soba: right and we can agree that going against the survivors wishes is bad right? Seditionist: I don't think it's that simple. I don't personally know the details so couldn't comment but AF et al were told they needed [redacted] not to know for safety reasons while they work on a solution, not great but understandable. Several months later [redacted] is put through a Joseph K scenario, social exile without a reason, decisions made without even been told he's accused of something, and imposed isolation without any restorative justice, accountability or safeguarding processes. We should side with survivors of course, but that doesn't mean we're beholden to act without discretion, or that we don't have a duty to others mental and personal wellbeing. Do people not have the right to know what they are accused off, least we give to shadow trials and no defence? how is that any better than the courts? I was put through that, for years. In the end my accusers acknowledged that they were lying and they hadn't even been aware that third parties had lead a shadow campaign against me.](https://getriddical.noblogs.org/files/2025/06/rev-and-soba-discord-01.png)
![Screenshot of Discord conversation between Soba and Seditionist/Rev: Soba: But if you tell the guy 'someone has accused you of abuse' then he already knows who it is/could be, because he knows who he abused. This would seem to me to clearly present a danger to the survivor, especially if they're telling you it will be dangerous to them. If this goes public, then the anarchist community may easily turn round and side with [redacted] and the survivor may receive even more abuse. Seditionist: If think talking about specifics, of a case neither of us are privy too is dangerous. I don't know the specifics here and my opinions don't apply. However saying that I think if you encounter an accusation which presents a clear, evidenced threat to the safety of others you are obliged to act. You should do everything you can to protect the previous survivors but you are beholden to ensure there are no more survivors in future. this means you can't simply tell the accused you know and they are bad and then go home job done. It also means you can't be like, ok, I'll personally ignore him and then do nothing else. Survivors need support, but for a variety of reasons, they are not always the best port of call for solutions. Do we think the state should execute people? No, but sure as fuck many people who've gone through a wider range of shit sure do. This is before we even consider the right of response, maybe the situation is more complex and hearing the singular narrative framed by trauma is misleading us into reactionary responses? What if it's mistaken identity? What if it's something more malicious? What if it's something incidental?](https://getriddical.noblogs.org/files/2025/06/rev-and-soba-discord-03.png)
![Screenshot of Discord conversation between Soba and Seditionist/Rev. Soba: London AF said they have a working group, I forgot to ask them if I could join at the FDM, so I asked on Discord but got no response. Seditionist: This is the working group who are dealing with the [redacted] case presumably, who pretty much say any consideration for his mental health is to side with an abuser and who consider warning other anarchists about the threat would be to undermine a survivor? I am not hopeful and think we can and should have better practice. Soba: (quoting Rev: "who pretty much say any consideration for his mental health is to side with an abuser") This sounds like hyperbole, but yes the mental health of the abuser should not be a priority. Soba: (quoting Rev: "warning other anarchists about the threat would be to undermine a survivor?") In this case that seems to evidently be true. Seditionist: Not a priority, but a consideration. Is it true? I'm not sure it's a binary. What if he - unaccused - goes on to do something horrible to someone who wouldn't of been there if only we had warned them? Meanwhile we're all out there, coming up with all manner of pictures in our head, assuming the worst case scenario... but doesn't absolutely fucking jack to prevent it. For how long? What about if it's not a safeguarding issue and she just cant be bother? What if she likes that he's being ghosted and hopes it's fucking with him mentally?](https://getriddical.noblogs.org/files/2025/06/rev-and-soba-discord-06.png)
![Screenshot of Discord conversation between Soba and Seditionist/Rev. Seditionist: We should believe survivors, but we should investigate, especially when it involves an ongoing threat to wellbeing. The worst thing for me, was the number of anarchists, who on me telling them I was accused of things, simply believed I was innocent cause I said I was. I fell out with a number of people. Like bro, that's not cool. Don't believe me, fucking investigate if I'm being honest ffs believe survivors! Soba: The aim of an investigation shouldn't really be in order to 'prove' the survivor is telling the truth, but a general next step in figuring out what to do about it? Seditionist: of course. Soba: 'Investigate' is a loaded word of course. Seditionist: presumption of honesty, until some strong arguments/evidence counter. Ultimately you have to give the accused right of reply. At least one situation I know of involved someone's abuser making a case, demanding no one communicate with them, when people did, they were given visual evidence that the accusation was a lie (photo of them in a place at the time) or something and they shared DMs that illustrated the "survivor" being the abuser. We can't act like this isn't possible. which is why London/Bristol investigated and I trust their response without needing details for myself. that as far as they can tell, [redacted] is an abuser and a threat to the community. Soba: but you don't agree with their following steps (saying nothing)? Seditionist: We're just missing that "right of reply". The time frame was one month.... it was extended not with intention but apathy and the purpose given changed. This set off red flags. Soba: but wait I thought you said they did an investigation you trust.](https://getriddical.noblogs.org/files/2025/06/rev-and-soba-discord-08.png)
These messages are explicit abuse apologia, and demonstrate a clear scepticism from Rev, and by extension the AF, when it comes to believing survivors and respecting their wishes.
A common DARVO tactic is to reframe acts of defence or resistance by a victim as abuse, therefore recasting the abuser as the true victim. Most anarchists understand and advocate violent resistance when it comes to the actions of the working class against the state, but many are unable to apply this logic to the interpersonal authoritarianism of abuse. Additionally, Rev uses the common apologist technique that focuses on maintaining the mental health of abusers and “reforming” them. Borrowing from Lee Cicuta once more:
Liberals frequently oppose anti-fascist tactics like de-platforming and physical confrontation on the grounds that it would be, according to them, more effective if we took the time to speak to fascists and win their hearts and minds over to our cause. Most radicals dismiss and laugh off as liberal bullshit the idea that we should pour our energy into the reform and redemption of people who are organizing to steal our autonomy and our lives, and yet can turn to survivors of abuse with the same liberal demand to prioritize saving the souls of our abusers at the expense of our safety and the effectiveness of our anti-abuse political project. This is at least in part because many radicals continue to understand abuse as something that happens outside of politics, a result of individual pathology to be corrected rather than an expression of an authoritarian values system to be confronted.
The most appalling moment for me is when Rev speculates that in the case we were discussing, it could be that the survivor’s only goal was to “fuck with the guy mentally”. Entirely unprompted, Rev brings up that this happened to him, presumably referring to ‘person2’ in AFNP2 who “hated Rev” and “was at no pains to stamp out rumours” (read: allegations) that were contributing to his life being made difficult by coming up over and over again. To be very clear: Survivors do not owe their rapists or abusers grace, understanding, forgiveness, redemption, or anything at all. If they are happy that their abuser’s life is being made more difficult because the world is regularly reminded that they’re an abuser, then we will join them in joyful celebration.
That being said, it is still incredibly fucked up to assume that a survivor’s attempts to keep their abuser out of a space would be done entirely out of spite. It is a common rape culture myth that survivors are vindictive and untrustworthy. When in fact most survivors simply want the return of their own agency, and their abuser to not be able to hurt someone else. Rev’s accuser ‘person2’ who “was at no pains to stamp out rumours” could very simply be glad that more people are learning that Rev is dangerous. This was a possibility nobody else in the AF seemed to entertain. Rev’s replies make clear his priority is with protecting the accused, not survivors or anyone else.
Elsewhere, I had a very annoying conversation with one AF member (screenshot below) who wanted to set up an accountability process for the previously mentioned well known anarchist despite them living in another country and the survivor CLEARLY NOT ASKING FOR THAT. This shows how backwards some of the thinking around accountability is in the AF. I had not expected that talking about it with them would be a constant uphill battle.
![Screenshot of Discord conversation between Soba and a member of the AF whose name has been redacted. AF Member: Would the survivor be up for a process happening without their involvement if they aren't able to be a part of it ATM? Or would that not work? If not then can we set a deadline for the start of a process involving the survivor and if nothing happens before then, then we either do a process anyway or carry on with [redacted] setting some boundaries with him? Soba: How are you going to do an accountability process without the survivor? Or do you mean a different kind of process? AF Member: Accountability. Guess we would need some sort of input from the survivor around what the situation was. Whether they designate someone to correspond with us or not is up to them. It is better than nothing. Soba: Any accountability process should be survivor-led AF Member: But if the survivor keeps putting it off then you cannot leave the other person indefinitely cancelled. That never does any good. The longer it is left the more the perpetrator feels hurt and then they are unlikely to listen and change. We are supposed to be supporting people to become better, not recreating the criminal prosecution service. Soba: I do not see how anyone is 'recreating the criminal prosecution service'. Furthermore, putting the perpetrator's feelings above the wishes of the survivor would be a horrible thing to do. We are also not ideally positioned to carry out an accountability process anyway.](https://getriddical.noblogs.org/files/2025/06/AF-Member-and-Soba-Discord-accountability-process-with-no-survivor.png)
Throughout mine and Rev’s exchange, there is a constant and clear hostility to survivor-led politics. I have learned in the time since that this kind of abuse apologism is an extremely reliable indicator for that person being an abuser themselves. Months before the allegations against her were made public, I remember Sophie from Mars coming to my stall at an event and lecturing someone on why the zine I was tabling, ’12 myths about accountability’, was actually very carceral and bad. It is always worth being sceptical of those who repeat such narratives, especially if they should know better. Some others talk the talk but will always defend abusers in practice.
The Interbellum
In 2022 I didn’t have as coherent an analysis as provided above. I knew what I was seeing was abuse apologia, but it was also an argument I had heard many times before and many times since from lots of different anarchists. I knew what Rev said was wrong, but not how to express why, and doubted that anybody would agree with me.
Following Rev’s hostile rebuttal, the departure from the AF of the comrade who had brought the accusations to me, and the multiple statements in support of Rev from others, I dropped the issue. I didn’t see any way forward now that Rev was aware of what I’d been looking into. I still felt wary, but didn’t feel like I had enough to go on.
I focused on prisoner support and ran prisoner letter writing sessions on the Discord, and wrote a couple of articles for Organise! Magazine. Mostly, I trusted the investigations of the IWW and the AF and believed ‘no case to answer’ to be a finding in Rev’s favour, something that he and others repeat regularly.
Dave
During this time, there was another troubling incident. The person who had invited me into the AF was a man named Dave (A.K.A Kuwasi or Ludd at that time). Dave and I worked together as part of an East Anglia anarchist group. He travelled all over the place and after every protest seemed to come back with a new story about a new girl. I couldn’t keep up with the pace of his travels, but when we eventually went to a couple of things together, I saw in-person how he would shout the loudest, be the most aggressive guy in the march, and chat up whichever girl looked most young or vulnerable. He would take them to expensive fancy restaurants and buy them expensive gifts. This is an example of ‘love bombing’, a common tactic for abusers in relationships. The expectation being that after doing and buying nice things for these women, they owed him sex. These relationships never lasted and he kept moving on.
Eventually, Dave got into a more serious relationship. It was in this relationship he was accused of sexual assault. I only found this out later, because Dave and the AF never told me. In fact Dave would eventually go on to say he didn’t know what he was accused of either, echoing Rev’s references to a ‘Kafkaesque nightmare’. Dave removed himself from every organisation he was in, alluding to having done some ‘bad things’.
Based on the conversations Dave and I had (screenshots below), I believed at the time that at minimum he was pressuring her into having sex with him, despite her setting a clear boundary to take it slow because of past experiences.
![Screenshot of message from Dave to Soba. Things aren't easy at [redacted]. She's like "I feel like we have a real connection, which is why I don't want to rush into this just being a sex thing. I have intimacy issues to work out and I think you do too."](https://getriddical.noblogs.org/files/2025/06/dave-text-02.png)
In context, he says this like it’s an absurd boundary to ask to take things slow and is venting to me because he’s angry that he’s not getting laid.
But, as is often the case with predators, Dave tried to come back into the scene after some time had passed. On the Discord, a new member joined the server. Though he used a new name, I recognised Dave from his typing style instantly. It turned out that Rev had been the one to invite him back. Rev did not communicate to us—the other server moderators and members—beforehand that he was allowing Dave back into the server, and reacted angrily when I brought it up. I have been given permission to share a couple of screenshots from a former member when we were discussing this at the time.
When I asked if Dave was being truthful about not knowing what he was accused of doing, they replied:
I explained much of the above to Rev, who said it did sound like ‘manarchist’ behaviour, but that Dave should be allowed back on the basis of the accountability process he went through. At the time, I agreed. He had been involved in an accountability process facilitated by a third-party organisation, which I had no access to. They said it had gone well and Dave had improved. I no longer trust the outcome of that process after learning the extent of Dave’s actions. Thankfully he left the Discord after being informed of my protestations. I can confidently say now that Dave is not someone who should be allowed back into any of our spaces.
Going through our old chats, this line from Dave is particularly sinister in retrospect:
The last time I saw him, he was pretty horrible to his own mother at home and defended another abuser, that’s when I cut contact.
As of now, he has started to return to the anarchist scene as ‘mutt’ as part of ‘Muntjac’ and appears to be working closely with Rev at Organise magazine and Seditionist Distro.
You can hear his voice here: Final Straw Radio: Mutt on The Incomplete Black Autonomy Reader
The TAB Statement
In the run-up to the 2023 London Anarchist Bookfair, a member of Transgender Action Block (TAB), brought up the accusations against Rev to the rest of the group (of which I am a member). We discussed it together, bringing in our different pieces of the puzzle, and, this time, with the extra clarity experience brings, I realised what I had been missing the whole time. These past investigations and ‘no case to answer’ verdicts were the result of shoddy politics over-reliant on ‘investigations’, and failed to take into account the idea that a survivor might not want to engage in an accountability process.
The IWW members who had threatened to beat Rev up if he entered their spaces again were making a clear statement from the past, and I should have listened instead of believing his victim narrative. Now, with several years of experience in the anarchist scene under my belt, it feels all too plausible that these organisations dropped the ball. Especially considering the wider problems and misunderstandings many anarchists still have with accountability and how it relates to abuse and sexual violence. TAB released a statement about Rev a day after the Bookfair.
I can’t corroborate every claim it makes, but you can judge for yourself how the most significant intersect with my telling of events and analysis. The day it was published, I left the AF, seeing no hope for positive steps to be taken within the organisation. The prevailing attitude among the remainder of the AF (especially after London AF disbanded in late 2022) felt too embedded in abuse apologism. I am pleased that I left.
I want to make it clear that I did not have a hand in writing TAB’s statement, although I did consent to it being posted. While other members were discussing writing it, I was still trying to figure out what course of action to take, but it was the straw that broke the camel’s back.
Aftermath
London Anarchist Bookfair, Organise!, Seditionist Distro, and Rev himself put out statements of defence on Twitter soon after the TAB statement (I’m not linking to them because some have been deleted, and others contain details of allegations against other people that were supposed to be kept private at a survivor’s request). The Organise! statement was written in the third person, but obviously authored by Rev. A friend and comrade who was still in the AF at the time took some screenshots of their Signal chat in the immediate aftermath.
As you can see, there was not an ounce of self-reflection or accountability to be found. They all immediately jumped to Rev’s defence. Interestingly, during my time in the AF, I was never invited to this chat, or aware that it existed. It’s yet more evidence of hierarchy within the AF, which of course, Rev is at the top level of.
The person who asked “What’s KYLR?” is one of the architects of the AF’s accountability process. That they didn’t even know what KYLR (Kill Your Local Rapist) means, shows how uninvolved in current survivor politics discourse they are. KYLR is a slogan indicating that we—militant anarcho-feminists—will do whatever we can to support a survivor. Up to and including helping them kill their rapist. In practice, what the K part of KYLR usually looks like is supporting people who had no other option left to escape their abuser but to kill him, and have been incarcerated by the state.
KYLR is not a policy position. It is not a dictate from the anarcho-legal-system that someone should be put to death as soon as someone else says they’re a rapist. It is a statement indicating that protecting our friends, comrades, spaces, and communities from rapists and abusers is paramount. Furthermore, to say the TAB statement was a plausible death threat or that it involved doxxing is obvious hyperbole.
AFed Statement on Rev
The statement the AF discussed releasing in the Signal screenshots was eventually published on the AF website in December 2023, which you can read here (archive). It was—as far as I know—never posted to their social media and certainly not widely publicised.
Most people who have read it will have had to email the AF to see it—I only learned about it in October 2024! In fact, it seems like it was backdated so as not to appear on the AF website’s frontpage.
I will now go through a couple of points raised here, this will be far from an exhaustive rebuttal to the statement.
The first point to address is:
Accusation that Rev threatened, sexually assaulted, and took money from PersonD [person2] whilst in a relationship with them: we were unable to establish direct contact with PersonD [person2]. For a long time we only had third-hand information. A couple of people within the IWW, who had told us that PersonD [person2] was a survivor of assault from Rev, claimed to have heard this through PersonA (who brought the counter-complaint against Rev to the IWW after he complained of them engaging in bullying). These people within the IWW believed that PersonA had heard it from PersonD [person2]. PersonA did not repeat this to us when we spoke to them, and would only say they were in contact with PersonD [person2] and that PersonD [person2] did not want to speak or in any way communicate about Rev.
That it was actually a counter-complaint that led to the IWW investigation into Rev after he first brought a complaint of bullying against the friends of person2 in the IWW has been missing from other tellings of this story. However, considering that we know Rev believes holding abusers accountable and ejecting them from a space to be bullying (or, somehow, torture) this is not evidence in Rev’s favour either.
The AF seem to think survivors have a responsibility to give specific details to their organisation so that they can have an investigation and process about it to transform the perpetrator. But this should not be the case. Survivors have no such responsibility. The AF has the responsibility to assume belief and take action based on that to make sure their spaces are safe from abusers. That might seem a controversial opinion, and your immediate reaction may be that it feels unfair, or “ruining someone’s life” on the basis of “no evidence”. But that is rape-culture talking. It is the same logic that has allowed rapists and abusers to continue their lives unhindered throughout history. Access to anarchist spaces is not a right (legal rights are the concerns of states, not anarchists) it is a privilege. A perpetrator’s life will not be ruined by revoking access to spaces and positions of power. The AF’s response to this only solidifies that their politics were neither developed enough or in the right place to deal with it.
Rev confirmed to us that he had been in a relationship with PersonD [person2] for two months a number of years prior. His version of events was that he had paid back the money claimed as taken, and then set up a standing order to do so a second time (after it was claimed it was never paid back initially). With regard to the more serious accusations, he gave more details on the circumstances of these events that we will not be sharing here. All we can say is that our facilitators were satisfied that what Rev told them fit, made sense, and crucially did not in any way contradict the information we were able to get from anyone else. We were given no first- or second-hand information that would suggest that Rev had committed sexual assault or abuse within his past relationship.
Whatever Rev said to the investigators… sorry, “facilitators” was credible enough for them to conclude their investigation.
The AF have only ever believed Rev’s testimony, and his alone. They have downplayed the accusations to members like me. But innocence is not what the IWW or AF investigations imply. They routinely say that there’s not enough information to go on to make a decision. ‘No case to answer’. For me, that’s not a good enough conclusion to keep working with someone, let alone keep them in positions of power.
As I was going through the documents that I gradually got access to over time, it felt like peeling back a curtain only for there to be another curtain and another and so on.
In order to allow AFed members to freely discuss the allegations from TAB, we suspended Rev from our internal communications, officer roles, and social media accounts.
Removing Rev from any roles was a mere token gesture at that point and there was no way he wasn’t coming back (and of course, he did). The AF allows things to go on exactly as before, with absolutely no self-reflection or attempt to develop a more coherent anti-abuse politic. The long-time members of the AF have become a clique marred in groupthink.
By not being upfront—both in the past and presently—about the results of their investigations with everyone who comes into contact with Rev via his position in the AF, they are restricting people’s ability to act freely and autonomously. Instead, in their idea of being ‘upfront’ about it, they let him control the narrative and poison the well amongst members. He primed me to believe that anyone making accusations against him was not worth listening to. In the following section, Rev attempts to poison the well again. But this time about me.
Fuck ‘The Suck’
Eventually, Rev wrote a lengthy statement he named ‘The Suck’. Since originally publishing it, he redacted some of it, and eventually deleted most of it, saying that he plans to revisit it in the future. Our analysis focuses on the original version (the link above leads to an archive of the original). This statement contained some straight up lies. I know they’re lies, because even though he doesn’t name me, they can only be about me. I will now go through them one-by-one, quickfire style.
I know TAB knows these things because the last time this stuff came up, two years ago, their primary organiser (and fellow member of the AF) decided to email every anarchist they could find to ask incredibly pointed questions. I contacted them directly and told them the facts of the case, and these were supported by others who had looked into things. They accepted these truths and carried on. This member had full contact with me for years beforehand within groups and directly via signal. We had reading groups, moderation sessions, and even partook in the accountability processes for two other people. They could have asked and sought clarification on any new accusation they heard from third parties. They instead decided to doxx me at a time when fascists were paying them enhanced attention, the day after spending the entire day standing 10ft away from me.
1) I am referred to here as TAB’s primary organiser, (a meteoric rise from being on the periphery in the Signal screenshots) I am not. The contradiction makes it obvious that Rev has no idea what my real involvement with TAB is and chose to label me ‘primary organiser’ to besmirch the entire organisation.
2) I did not email “every anarchist I could find”, I emailed my own organisation, Bristol AF and London AF. Emails that you can read in this article. I emailed them out of genuine concern and instead was met with hostility.
3) That I “accepted these truths and carried on” is not quite accurate. In reality, I had my confidence broken while trying to discuss this privately within the organisation, so couldn’t really look into it anymore. Rev successfully ‘nipped it in the bud’ and I remained sceptical while working on other things.
4) We did not take part in anything like two accountability processes together. I complained that Dave had been allowed back into the Organise Discord because he’s a predator. I don’t know what the supposed second accountability process refers to (the previously mentioned well known anarchist, maybe?). In either case, these were not accountability processes by any stretch of the imagination.
5) Rev says I spent the day at bookfair “10ft away” from him, in reality I spent that day about 4 or more floors beneath him and we did not interact once.
This is abuse, perhaps worse, stochastic abuse.
6) ‘Stochastic abuse’ is not a real thing.
I welcome inquiry, I have nothing to hide because I am entirely innocent.
7) He does not welcome inquiry, he gets very angry and pissy.
8) Elsewhere, he lies about TAB, claiming someone brought a ‘fake witness’ to an accountability process. This is absurd. A fake witness? Is this a courtroom drama?
TAB, or at least the members within the periphery (who use different organisational fronts to obfuscate personal responsibility), have form for such false and over-zealous actions, and specifically for over-stating concerns about two people (that I’m aware of), even bringing a fake witness to one of their accountability processes.
9) That TAB neglected to mention that:
Person A [person2] was, in fact, abusive to me, has a repeated pattern of false accusations with the same story beats and told an accountability process they don’t care about any of this and later, a party full of people that not only was it not true, but that it’s funny that it has caused me harm.
Aside from Rev’s claim that person2 was abusive to him, I don’t have, and have seen no other documents revealing the rest of these details. If other members of TAB have, they have not shared them with me. It is not willful neglect. As far as I know, neither Rev or the AF have ever mentioned that person2 has a “repeated pattern of false accusations”. This is a brand new detail that hasn’t appeared elsewhere. Person2 has gone from “being at no pains to stamp out rumours” in AFNP2, to “a repeated pattern of false accusations with the same story beats”. Rev keeps adding new details to make person2 seem shittier and shittier. This stinks of DARVO.
I wasn’t surprised to see a longform response from Rev to the TAB statement, but I admit I was surprised to see such outright lies. It makes it impossible to trust anything he says.
Taken all together, this is an attempt to discredit everything I—and by extension TAB—say by framing me as someone untrustworthy who maliciously goes behind people’s backs. You’ve read my emails. My questions weren’t pointed, but broad. Clearly not being tactful enough for Rev’s liking is a sign I was secretly out to get him all along.
It appears the only course of action Rev would accept for someone in my situation is to declare they have heard the accusations and then for Rev to message them with his version of events. Following this, they should accept all of it unquestionably and move on. By not doing this, I have become a slimy, slippery snake. Once more, Rev is poisoning the well. William Gillis wrote of this behaviour from organisations; “Here, we have a reconciliation process specifically designed to defuse accusations in secret, if you aren’t using that then you’re acting in bad faith.”
I will now talk a little more about some of the other tactics at play in ‘The Suck’.
Emotional Manipulation and DARVO
Rev uses emotionally charged statements containing seemingly deeply personal information in an effort to get you to feel bad for him, and that you’re in the wrong for considering he might’ve done something bad. For example:
The social media post that incited this whole thing (in which Person A [person2] gleefully describes attacking me), states that I had previously threatened to hit them. When asked about this, they say that I said “stop or I’ll slap you” or similar during a tickle fight. I have no idea if I said these things, regardless I apologised for them and entirely understand that my tone/manner may have came across as severe or intenting violence. These are mistakes people make in their life, we learn from them. Three years later I would have two lads attempt to start a fight with me as I walked home based on the idea that the above was actually a prolonged campaign of domestic abuse.
This is a hard one because to question, doubt, or suggest it could be a manipulation tactic immediately feels dismissive of someone else’s emotions. Which is why DARVO is so effective, it plays on your empathy. In general for situations like this, you should look at the power dynamic between the people in the relationship.
Borrowing again from Butch Anarchy:
The questions to ask are not as simple as who did what in individual, decontextualized events but contextual questions such as: what is the intent of that behavior (gain control over someone or take back control over oneself)? What is its effect (are they afraid or have they established control? Who is making the decisions? Were these decisions coerced? What are the consequences for making decisions that the partner doesn’t like? Whose boundaries are respected? Who feels entitled to consistently have their way? Whose life is getting smaller?
In the previous quote from Rev, it’s uncomfortable reading about the specifics of his relationships (that discomfort helps to dissuade further inquiry) in which he minimises what, let’s be clear, was an accusation of threatening to assault someone in a “tickle fight”. Can we really brush off such a severe accusation so easily? I don’t believe people make these accusations lightly. There is often a significant social cost from making these kinds of accusations—particularly against a male partner—that can result in survivors losing entire friend groups.
Hyperbole
So, TAB intentionally posted a vague accusation, doxxed me and called for my murder.
Rev’s repeated claims that he was doxxed by the TAB statement are hyperbolic and very silly, the only thing it did was use some of—but not all—his multiple pseudonyms. Doxxing would involve posting his address and/or photo. TAB didn’t even use Rev’s government name!
Again, claiming the TAB statement using “KYLR is a verb” was a “call for his murder” and genuine threat to his life is similarly hyperbolic.
These “confirmations” of my misdoings, such as being transphobic, a fascist, a racist, BNP voter, a meat promoter and others, are all entirely fictional or stem from hilariously misreadings, each of which was discounted by an IWW investigation and three seperate AF processes (each time someone brings this stuff up with).
The TAB statement is clearly about rape and abuse apologism, and makes no reference to him being a fascist or BNP voter. Even in AFNP2 which mentions Rev had wanted to work with the BNP at some point, he is never accused of being a BNP voter. Frankly, the inclusion of a ridiculous claim such as “Rev votes BNP” seems like an obvious attempt to further muddy the waters, and make all other accusations against him seem ludicrous.
The people concerned about Rev’s presence in the present day are focused on the allegation that he sexually assaulted someone and engaged in abuse apologism. Just because I know he’s not a transphobe, that’s not enough for me to assume there is nothing to the other allegations against him. Again, lumping them all in together only muddies the waters.
Fantasising about Individualists
There are well known existing animosities within anarchism, one of course being that between collectivists and individualists.
the confirmation bias of individualists with hostility towards collective organising does a lot of the leg work for avoiding being a decent person.
The formation of in-groups and out-groups often leads to people defending members of their in-group even if that person really has done something wrong, especially if the accusation comes from the perceived out-group. In the quotes above and below, Rev is hoping to use that to his advantage and put a wedge between different anarchists that, for the most part, share similar beliefs. This extends what is considered the out-group and makes the in-group even more isolated and insular as a result. If you believe individualists are untrustworthy and are a malign influence on “True Anarchism”, then you could also believe these accusations were made up.
Rebuilding Trust
I believe the first step to rebuilding trust between in-groups and out-groups, collectivists and individualists, is ending the rampant abuse apologism within our organisations.
I’d like to see grace afforded to people who don’t know everything, get things wrong or just don’t know what to do. But there has to be a willingness from them to learn. You must be willing to go off and educate yourself.
On the other hand, anarchists should stop giving so much benefit of the doubt to people who spew apologist rhetoric. A lot of them aren’t confused and in need of educating, they are wilfully spouting bullshit about exclusion from a space being ‘carceral’ and ‘not very restorative’. This should be called out anytime it happens. In my experience, these arguments have never been given in good faith and have only served to disrupt conversations on accountability. The fact that believing survivors and enacting consequences—not punishment—on those accused (like no longer being allowed to access a space) is considered ‘carceral’ would be laughable if it weren’t so prevalent and had such horrific consequences. Using abolitionist language to advocate for systems that literally mirror the criminal justice system is disgusting.
Rev leans constantly on the outcomes of his ‘investigations’ as proof of his innocence. I’m sorry, but a survivor being unwilling to engage in one of these is not proof of anything of the sort. I do believe in TJ, but only as part of a diversity of tactics and taking into consideration the wishes of the survivor, anarchists need to stop defaulting to RJ or TJ. Survivors do not owe their abusers anything, including the abuser’s personal transformation. The courts and the criminal justice system consistently protect perpetrators, we should not be reproducing it or its logic. The survivors’ wishes should be the primary thing to consider and these processes are too often forced on them.
Anarchists should stop seeing sexual violence as a problem existing within individuals but as part of a wider rape culture. Lots of anarchists are some of the most vulnerable people in society, there are ample opportunities for more privileged anarchists to exploit those vulnerabilities. Not everyone is in it for the good of the cause. This is why ejecting these people from our spaces is itself doing the work of anarchy. It’s self-defence against power.
But instead, organisations turn to ‘investigations’ and poorly done ‘accountability processes’ that look less like holding someone to account, than putting the survivor through potentially re-traumatising pain in an attempt to prove the guilt of the accused ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ in a way that’s indistinguishable from the legal system. The reasons survivors are hounded out of orgs are the same reasons survivors never see their rapists prosecuted. “Innocent until proven guilty” is not and should not be an anarchist ideal, but it is one many hold onto. So we must demand better from our organisations.
Muddy Muddy Muddy
Finally, in the entire time I was looking into this and having discussions with Rev one-on-one about it, his story would change slightly each time. Even in The Suck, he added new things to his story that I’d not heard anything about previously.
The Suck further muddies the waters. In fact, for a statement meant to ‘clear things up’ he spends a lot of time making the water muddier and muddier. I often felt like there must be a lot I’m missing for him to even bring up transphobia or racism or the literal BNP, and now there’s ‘fake witnesses’ and people who have apparently ‘admitted to lying’ about the accusations. It seems like he sticks a new piece of info on every time you don’t just immediately accept his version of events.
‘No Borders’ Doesn’t Mean No Boundaries
Since the TAB statement and responses to it were published, Rev and the organisations he’s involved in have had some pushback, with some people (myself included) blocking him. But in multiple instances, he has evaded these blocks by messaging from his org admin accounts. If you block him on Signal, you might find him in your Twitter DMs, or sending you stuff through the postal service. He has continued to engage in clearly unwanted contact and shown a general disregard for people’s boundaries, making some people feel uncomfortable or unsafe. I have heard personal testimony of this.
At the 2024 bookfair in Newcastle, it was made clear Organise! and the AF were not welcome to stall and why (the allegations against Rev). AF members (apparently from London(!)) turned up anyway, to try and talk about him with the organisers. A very suspicious and creepy thing was that the friends trying to ‘clarify’ information about Rev, despite being separate people and having separate conversations with several of the organisers, were all speaking from IDENTICAL SCRIPTS. The ease with which the narrative is repeated (which of course follows Rev’s version of events only) is weirdly cultish.
Closing remarks
Even if you don’t agree with my analysis or opinions on all the information I’ve presented, you still have the opportunity to evaluate everything yourself. I wrote this because I think it reveals something about the ways accountability is thought about and discussed in the anarchist scene and I think we’re failing people on a regular basis. Rev is not the only guy like this, but he is one I happened to cross paths with. Hopefully you can learn from my story.
Rev himself hides behind investigations as proof of innocence and gets angry at inquiry. He lashes out instead and tries to nip things in the bud before any scrutiny can be applied. Instead, he’ll tell you in as many words not to believe anything concerning you’ve heard, and that it’s clearly all bullshit that nobody could possibly believe unless they were an idiot or, more likely (in his mind) a malicious actor out to get him. He’ll then call you the asshole for asking about it, and say you’re actually abusing him! All of which is both incredibly suspect and controlling behaviour; demanding we believe his narrative and his narrative alone. It’s very ego-driven. And then to defend others who have been accused of sexual violence and focus on their mental health is even worse.
The way he responded to finding out about my inquiries was nothing short of bullying behaviour and the lies he continues to tell about me, (the one courtesy being that he didn’t mention me by name) without his precious right of reply, is fucked up. The way he preserved his clique by not even mentioning or inviting members like me to the AFed Signal chat shows that this was a two-tier organisation the entire time.
The focus should rightly be on the very serious accusation of sexual assault against Rev, but I think the way I’ve been treated is worth noting as well. Even if Rev is innocent of the initial accusations, which I have tried to provide as much clarity about as possible here, he has and continues to engage in apologia, bullying, controlling behaviour, and boundary crossing.
I feel I am entitled to tell this story, much as others have told their stories about LAF (London Anti-Fascists), the SWP, and others. I do not act out of anger or resentment, though I may feel those emotions sometimes. I believe some of the points I’ve raised here are relevant to anarchists everywhere. I also acknowledge that I did not always act as I should have done and could have done better at different points in challenging what was going on in the AF.
Abuse apologism, though we don’t like to admit it, is the default in many of our communities and getting out of that mindset is a difficult task. It shouldn’t be, but it is. So, what are you going to do about it?
Some reading I recommend on accountability that informs my perspective are:
‘What about the rapists? anarchist approaches to crime & justice’ – zine
‘Why Misogynists Make Great Informants: How Gender Violence on the Left Enables State Violence in Radical Movements’
‘Beyond Survival: Strategies And Stories From The Transformative Justice Movement’
‘London Activist Left: It’s Time To Stop Covering For Abusers’
‘The Point of DARVO’
‘Tactics for the Fight Against Abuse: Learning from Anti-Fascism’
‘When “Restorative Justice” Means Restoring Peace, Not Justice’