The CPA-ML is suspected of having very small numbers.

Due to having an underground org structure, it's very difficult to ascertain their numbers and they almost always appear publicly with only two members who are sort of frontmen for the org, if you will.

I'm not sure if Albert Langer is still part of the CPA-ML or not but he is/was one of the more prominent members and if you read some of his blog posts it's... a bit wild. Quoting Jordan Peterson, being a climate change skeptic, and supporting the US invasion of Iraq are just some of the eyebrow-raisers.

ACP - ML, sketchy behaviour involving cooperating with police in NSW, almost never attend anything, but feed homeless people in anarchist style street kitchens ala food not bombs

Part of the reason for the ACP not attending anything is threefold - they are a very new organisation so they don't necessarily have branches everywhere/in places where they have branches they don't necessarily have numbers that a more established party can muster, they are strongly opposed to tailism and as such you might be surprised to find that ACP members are actually attending protests but they aren't out there waving their own flags and selling badges or newspapers like... well, you know exactly who so that makes them much less visible unless you happen to know their faces, and I think the ACP is more focused on building the org itself rather than on being visible because a lot of protests are pretty lib so I don't think there's overwhelming enthusiasm for a lot of them. That's not to say that they actively oppose them or anything like that but I get the sense that strengthening the party, strengthening ties to the community and providing support to the community, and having rigorous ideological development of party members is a higher priority than marching in a protest for them, at least at the moment. Whether or not those priorities match someone else's is a personal matter.

But on the matter of the relationship between the ACP and the police there's a long story here, not a lot of which has come to light as there are court proceedings around one particular incident.

At the time of the CPA/ACP split there were accusations of the CPA calling the cops on the ACP to disrupt their organisation efforts, although I doubt this is what gets the ACP negative press in this respect.

There has been some communication between lead organisers of the CUDL branches and police leadership but that's basically the police trying to pressure the CUDL into ceasing its activities by using threats and intimidation rather than anything to do with an active partnership between the two. If you've attended a CUDL I would encourage you to observe the members when they see a police car or officer nearby - you'll quickly get a clear picture of their sentiment towards cops.

The incident which has court proceedings surrounding it relates to an individual who is prominent on the east coast and who is involved in street art and radical movements. If you know him long term then you'll know that he was formerly associated with the ACP/CUDL before there was bad blood between him and them.

Later there was a violent confrontation he initiated unprovoked against ACP members who were part of a demonstration. ACP members were injured by his actions. He has also targeted ACP members with a campaign of serious harassment, and we're not just talking about saying a few mean things online either.

He is the main person who will deface ACP posters and he uses his social media presence to push this message and a very one-sided narrative.

He has said to people who he still organises with to that he has footage of the incident of the violent confrontation which proves his innocence that he said he would produce months and months ago but he has since failed to come through with anything but excuses for why he can't produce it. It can be presumed that if he did have such evidence that he wouldn't be finding excuses for not putting it out on social media because he's not shy about sharing other stuff online.

There are parts of this matter which aren't being discussed openly and I have already provided more information than is typically available.

It's a difficult situation but when there are members of your org being assaulted without provocation and others who are being put through the sort of harassment of an duration and intensity that would be enough to warrant a restraining order then it's worth asking what you would do about it - it's not something that can be resolved by talking it through, you can't just avoid them when they are actively seeking members of your org out, and they seem committed to causing people in your org harm (which goes way beyond just attacking the org itself or slandering it or anything like that).

Do you get a group together and beat the shit out of them? That's probably not going to de-escalate the situation but rather it would kickoff reprisals from a person who is very willing to be violent and it would likely attract more police attention, not to mention causing further rifts amongst an already fractured radical left in Australia.

Do you ignore it? People have been injured and lives have been directly impacted by his actions, and it's unlikely that he's going to tire himself of it.

...I'm just glad that I'm not in the situation where I am the one calling the shots.

My honest opinion is that it's wrecker behaviour. For example, I'm an ML and I have absolutely no love for SAlt - I'm going to shit-talk them to whoever will listen, I'll criticise their org publicly, and if they stop me in the street I'll probably tell them that I'm a Stalinist so that I can watch their smiles curdle on their faces. But I'm not about to assault any members of their org or find out where one of their organisers live so I can surveil them and make death threats against them and shit like that. That's far beyond reasonable.

Bad-jacketing is always going to be a problem amongst the radical left and it's extremely destructive, historically speaking. I would encourage people to be careful not to unintentionally signal-boost attempts at bad-jacketing, especially if they haven't investigated the situation. Be cautious about people and orgs, especially if there are rumours? Sure. Judge people and orgs by their actions? Absolutely. But just be cautious about what people tell you because people have their own agendas and they aren't always trustworthy.

Source: am an associate of the ACP and on good terms with the leadership, as well as other radical left orgs but a member of none.

Edit: Forgot to add one bit:

I know some people in the freedom socialist party's radical women group, but not sure how much they do irl

The FSP is a Trotskyist org. I haven't had contact with the Radical Women org so I can't say whether they're just another trot cutout or if they're an org which does good work that happens to be associated with trot orgs/led by trots but I thought it'd be worth mentioning this.

This is a fantastic answer, thank you