Re: Nine Ladies, POSSESSION ORDER THIS WEEK!! | Forum

Nine Ladies of Stanton Moor 26

Image by stubob

Nine Ladies, POSSESSION ORDER THIS WEEK!!

more_vert

nigelswift Jan 22, 2004 13:18:44

Replying to Kozmik_Ken

I'm going to fight my corner on this one.

First, I was prompted to raise the issue by getting an email from a TMAer who was unsure about joining HA and who said they didn't want to be involved if it was associated in direct action and dubious campaigning. This isn't my main reason, but it's worth pointing out that there are many people who feel like that and we could lose a lot of potential supporters that way (the flipside of losing support of more radical people!).I tend to agree with their feelings, and although I've been as radical as anyone in my time and I know it sometimes works, I also know it's sometimes counter-productive and impedes causes. I think it has a place but a separate one.
Second, I take a long term strategic view of HA and think we have set it up just right so that it will grow, in the form of an umbrella organization, to fill a big need. However, particularly while it's in it's infancy, and has few campaigns and no track record, it needs to protect it's image, which is the one and only thing our opponents can use against us. We have some stunning stuff and will do well, but why jeapardise our current causes needlessly? Later, when we are well known, and our persona is well embedded in the public's consciousness, we can afford to be less careful, but not yet IMHO. Having spent a week poring over some technical stuff I now think there are some absolutely scandalous things that we can bring to the public and no way will we be in danger of being seen as "toothless tea n' cakes suck-ups" but on the other hand exactly because some of it is so scandalous I'd like to leave absolutely no bolt holes.
As I understand it the HA umbrella will have individual campaign pages (1) from existing campaigns and linked to their websites and (2) created by us at the suggestion of the public, and the two types of page will be of equal weight and under the same banner and stated principles. (I've posted an outline as I see it on the HA site). This obviously involves trusting that all the campaigners act in a way that accords with our standards - our site, our banner, so we're associated. I just think there are some occasions when we can do without more than a small risk.
My solution would be: either make our pages that link to existing campaigns less prominent than our home grown ones on the grounds we can then minimise our connection with them if they're naughty (seems unfair and impracticable- we trust the Thornborough campaign after all) or we keep them all equal but are selective about who we allow under our banner.
None of this, of course, precludes us from maintaining an independent Nine Ladies campaign of our own or of maintaining a simple links page that would include a link to the Nine Ladies campaign website.

Moth Jan 22, 2004 13:33:19

Replying to nigelswift

Nigel, I for one understood how you feel and why you feel that way. And to a large extent I agree. The point about being careful until we're established is a good one.

BUT (you knew it was coming!) as long as we keep our distance from the more militant 'direct action' groups (and I'm not saying that I personally think there's necessarily owt wrong with them) I wouldn't have thought we'd put potential MEMBERS off. I do agree though that it'd take careful handling to make the difference in our position visible in the press and maybe to the GENERAL public.

Tis a difficult one, and one that's good to discuss before we come across a similar situation that we could practically get involved in - it's quite handy that we're not actually ready to get involved anyway!

love

Moth

Kozmik_Ken Jan 22, 2004 14:14:12

Replying to nigelswift

>My solution would be: either make our pages that link to existing campaigns less >prominent than our home grown ones... or we keep them all equal but are selective >about who we allow under our banner.

What I had in mind Nigel, was pretty much a links page. A paragraph of info and links to an existing campaign, that has quite a wide tolerence for submissions (but obviously, it has to fall broadly within the guidelines of what HA is about)... this would be a level that allowed organisations concerned with a specific endangered site to promote themselves and to provide info to people who wish to be involved in a campaign as individuals. Also providing information for someone who wants to start their own campaign too. We make it clear that this is a service and that we are not connected with the groups listed.

I'd see the campaigns that we take on as being the ones in which people with an interest or energy to drive the thing forward take it on under the HA umbrella, using the HA template for approaching such things. If anyone wants to take a more radical approach that HA would take, then they can go off n' do their own thing.

I agree with what you say about not being seen as a radical group ourselves, so as not to alienate anyone. And minimising risk of exposing ourselves to any kind of fall out from dirt digging, is of course the most sensible route. I'm not suggesting that we present ourselves or allign ourselves in that way at all.

I'm just a little wary of us appearing aloof or too selective and think that providing support on two levels would be the best way of not alienating anyone. We rely on people at grassroots level (or heather maybe more appropriate) to report sites in danger and to watch over them.