Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 11:44 AM
>I am going to stop arguing for now and just get the
> information for the meeting on the website.
>
> What text should I put on the front page? What other
> pages are required? Links? Contact info?
>
> My psychic powers are limited and generally confined
> to horse whispering, so all content gratefully
> received.
>
> d^
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
> snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse
> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D154
>
>
bobette, 05 Sep 2005 12:02:42
Or 'Backstep' if -lash is too srtrong?
----- Original Message -----
: rosalee, 05 Sep 2005 12:02:42
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: [backlash] What's in a name
I agree. Personally I think it sounds awful! It makes me think of a group of intellectuals sitting around debating but doing nothing. I'm not entirely convinced by the argument that we should choose something innocuous sounding. I think it may just make us sound a bit silly.
Ginny
----- Original Message -----
om: bobby, 05 Sep 2005 12:02:42
To: Backlash@smartgroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 11:29 AM
Subject: [backlash] What's in a name
I don't really like CAFE - it's to woolly and vague. And doesn't sound like a stirring call to battle in the name of freedom. 'Backlash' at least has some notion of protest...
bx
Report abuse
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a questionnaire
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/backlash
To leave the group, email: backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
rosalee, 05 Sep 2005 12:06:35
Sounds too much like foxtrot to me! And it sounds too defensive.
----- Original Message -----
: bobby, 05 Sep 2005 12:06:35
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: [backlash] What's in a name
Or 'Backstep' if -lash is too srtrong?
----- Original Message -----
om: rosalee, 05 Sep 2005 12:06:35
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: [backlash] What's in a name
I agree. Personally I think it sounds awful! It makes me think of a group of intellectuals sitting around debating but doing nothing. I'm not entirely convinced by the argument that we should choose something innocuous sounding. I think it may just make us sound a bit silly.
Ginny
----- Original Message -----
From: bobby, 05 Sep 2005 12:06:35
To: Backlash@smartgroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 11:29 AM
Subject: [backlash] What's in a name
I don't really like CAFE - it's to woolly and vague. And doesn't sound like a stirring call to battle in the name of freedom. 'Backlash' at least has some notion of protest...
bx
Report abuse
Report abuse
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a questionnaire
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/backlash
To leave the group, email: backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
adrian, 05 Sep 2005 13:37:42
>I am going to stop arguing for now and just get the information for the meeting on the website.
>What text should I put on the front page? What other pages are required? Links? Contact info?
Feel free to lift whatever might be of use from the UF page. Whatever you do add I will remove from the UF version which will become little more than a link to your site and to the backlash smartgroup. I might keep the discussion links if you don't, but they need to be updated whoever hosts them.
>My psychic powers are limited
mine too ;) - do you want me to do any more than the redirect as I've mentioned?
SnowdropExplodes, 05 Sep 2005 18:05:14
--- rosalee wrote:
> I agree. Personally I think it sounds awful! It
> makes me think of a group of intellectuals sitting
> around debating but doing nothing. I'm not entirely
> convinced by the argument that we should choose
> something innocuous sounding. I think it may just
> make us sound a bit silly.
I'd like to re-propose my idea of "Freedom of Fantasy
Society"
Again, it has the positive element "freedom" as
opposed to "slavery", and it also picks out as a
central theme that this legislation isn't about real
acts and real events, it's about trying to legislate
over what we think about, and in particular what we
fantasise about.
The "FFS" acronym also carries a well-known
double-meaning for those involved online, that clearly
rings out that this is a proper protest, that we're
actually rather cross about it.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
stripey, 05 Sep 2005 18:49:50
In message <20050905170505.63961.qmail@web86206.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>,
-OJT- writes
>The "FFS" acronym also carries a well-known
>double-meaning for those involved online, that clearly rings out that
>this is a proper protest, that we're actually rather cross about it.
I like the idea of it being called FFS for short but don't particularly
like the name Freedom of Fantasy Society. "Society" is a non-starter as
it suggests it's some sort of private club, not a campaign for civil
liberties. "Fantasy" doesn't work for me either as it's about more than
just some people's fantasies, it's about removing *everyone's* right to
make their own judgement on what is suitable material for them to view.
Freedom From (something beginning with S) might be a better idea but
unfortunately I can't think of a decent synonym for censorship that
begins with S. :-(
--
stripey
"There's only one way of life - and that's your own"
Manniq, 05 Sep 2005 19:16:17
Author wrote:
> I don't really like CAFE - it's to woolly and vague. And doesn't sound like a stirring call to battle in the name of freedom. 'Backlash' at least has some notion of protest...
> bx
The more I hear it, the more it grows. Thinking back to the '70's and '80's, I worked with a number of 'Stop the...' campaigns which generally united people around the principle that they didn't want something to happen.
Best names, then, were either 'Stop the {insert thing here}' or broad umbrella words (like Backlash) that didn't tie its supporters too much to one thing.
Why? Well, as Fuschia has already noted, this board already spans a wide divergence of views, from those who take a Livertarian perspective to those who see this campaign as being mainly about bdsm.
If you fix the campaign name too firmly in one camp, then by definition, you alientate another... Doesn't matter which camp.
Therefore, I would say go with 'Backlash'....because its short, snappy and unifying.... and under that as umbrella, allow people to develop and pursue their different strategies toward the agreed end.
Regards,
M
Graham Marsden, 05 Sep 2005 20:08:12
-OJT- wrote:
> I'd like to re-propose my idea of "Freedom of Fantasy
> Society"
>
> The "FFS" acronym also carries a well-known
> double-meaning for those involved online,
It's a cute idea, but firstly "Fantasy Society" sounds too my like
role-playing games and secondly "FFS" doesn't, to my mind, suggest
sensible mature adults which is what we want to be perceived as (even
though some of us may not be!! ;-) )
Laurence, 05 Sep 2005 20:09:40
Author wrote:
> I agree. Personally I think it sounds awful! It makes me think of a group of intellectuals sitting around debating but doing nothing. I'm not entirely convinced by the argument that we should choose something innocuous sounding. I think it may just make us sound a bit silly.
> Ginny
> ----- Original Message -----
om: bobby, 05 Sep 2005 20:09:40
> To: Backlash@smartgroups.com
> Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 11:29 AM
> Subject: [backlash] What's in a name
> I don't really like CAFE - it's to woolly and vague. And doesn't sound like a stirring call to battle in the name of freedom. 'Backlash' at least has some notion of protest...
> bx
Both Ginny and Bobette are perfectly right - it is not in any way a 'stirring call to battle' and, as I wrote in message 2 on the other thread "It is not only non controvertial to the 'vanilla eye' it is also evocative of relaxed leisure moments sitting beneath trees on sunny days and for some harks back to 'cafe society' of artists and philosophers." which does indeed conjure an image of a "... group of intellectuals sitting around debating".
Both are precisely the reasons I would consider it suitable :))
If pursued then sooner or later this matter will have to face the public via the media - and will have to face Elizabeth Longhurst who speaks well, photographs well, has a wealth of public sympathy behind her, political support and is further supported by media interest in her campaign. That is a pretty impressive battery to go up against to begin with. A further potential source of support (as yet not in play) are the serried ranks of the Dworkinite movement and the not yet extinct National Viewers' and Listeners' Association (NVLA) to name but two other organisations who would be delighted to hitch up to this 'debate'.
No matter how good the arguments on the 'scene side' are, and no matter what *we* know to be the 'truth' - everything will eventually hinge on presentation and how that presentation is perceived in the wider society.
If we appear threatening then we generate fear - from fear comes anger. If we appear rabidly evangelical we will be dismissed as 'cranks'. To get our message across they must listen to the words and not be made deaf by negative self labeling nor by startling unconventional appearance. The ideal is for reasoned argument, supported by fact, presented by someone who looks as average as possible and has a well modulated speaking voice.
The other side relies on the emotive nature of the subject - if we oppose it in similar fashion I believe we will lose because that is their preferred battleground. Historically the only effective counter to the emotive argument is a reliance on the facts and pure evidence.
I have to confess that it is quite alien to my personal nature to suggest the 'normality' approach having been noted for my somewhat 'avant guarde' style during my years with the Home Office nevertheless I know only too well the prejudice and conservatism that exists within the walls of Horseferry Road and the Croydon 'coop'. All I can do is share that knowledge and offer advice. What is done with it is a matter for the 'collective mind'. Personally I don't mind sounding 'a bit silly' if that is what it takes to get the right result and as for "... a group of intellectuals sitting around debating" - well, that is pretty much a description of the people who will be looking at the various submissions. If they can identify with the source of our response then just maybe there might be a few extra points in it. ;)))
Kind regards
Laurence
Graham Marsden, 05 Sep 2005 20:20:49
lolsemail@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> No matter how good the arguments on the 'scene side' are, and no
> matter what *we* know to be the 'truth' - everything will
> eventually hinge on presentation and how that presentation
> is perceived in the wider society.
Good point. Whilst we may not like being perceived as a group of
odd-ball wierdos, it's better than being considered a "threat to the
moral fabric of the country".
> If we appear threatening then we generate fear - from fear comes anger.
And that leads to the Dark Side...! (Sorry!! :-) )
> The ideal is for reasoned argument, supported by fact, presented by
> someone who looks as average as possible and has a well modulated
> speaking voice.
None of those around these here parts, guv! ;-)
> The other side relies on the emotive nature of the subject - if we
> oppose it in similar fashion I believe we will lose
I agree. The best way to make the opposition look unreasonable is by
going out of our way to be as reasonable as possible.
stripey, 05 Sep 2005 21:08:36
In message <431C97D0.9050806@affordable-leather.co.uk>, graham
writes
>-OJT- wrote:
>
>> I'd like to re-propose my idea of "Freedom of Fantasy
>> Society"
>>
>> The "FFS" acronym also carries a well-known
>> double-meaning for those involved online,
>
>It's a cute idea, but firstly "Fantasy Society" sounds too my like
>role-playing games and secondly "FFS" doesn't, to my mind, suggest
>sensible mature adults which is what we want to be perceived as (even
>though some of us may not be!! ;-) )
I was re-reading some of the government statements justifying their
nanny statism and was thinking "Oh, get a grip!"
Then it occurred to me that giving the group a name like Get A Grip!
might work. For a start, it forms the acronym GAG, which works on two
levels. Secondly, it follows the modern trend of campaigning
organisations using a keyword or short phrase for their name (e.g.
Outrage or BRAKE) rather than an extremely boring and grandiose title
like "The National Co-ordinating Committee of the Coalition Against
blahblah".
I appreciate that such a name doesn't immediately get across what the
group is about, but that's where a strapline like "the campaign against
net nannying" or whatever comes in.
People might not like this specific idea but we should be thinking along
those lines. It has to be something that catches the eye. I guess I'll
settle for anything as long as it doesn't have words like "steering
committee" in the title anyway.
--
stripey
"There's only one way of life - and that's your own"
Thunder, 05 Sep 2005 21:24:55
In message <84fA2+LwRKHDFwKE@nildram.co.uk>, stripey
writes
>
>I appreciate that such a name doesn't immediately get across what the
>group is about, but that's where a strapline like "the campaign against
>net nannying" or whatever comes in.
CANN
--
^Thunder^
stripey, 05 Sep 2005 21:36:39
In message , ^Thunder^
writes
>In message <84fA2+LwRKHDFwKE@nildram.co.uk>, stripey
> writes
>>
>>I appreciate that such a name doesn't immediately get across what the
>>group is about, but that's where a strapline like "the campaign against
>>net nannying" or whatever comes in.
>
>CANN
Had thought about that too. Will go along with it if others like it.
--
stripey
"There's only one way of life - and that's your own"
Thunder, 05 Sep 2005 21:54:08
In message , stripey
writes
>In message , ^Thunder^
> writes
>>In message <84fA2+LwRKHDFwKE@nildram.co.uk>, stripey
>> writes
>>>
>>>I appreciate that such a name doesn't immediately get across what the
>>>group is about, but that's where a strapline like "the campaign against
>>>net nannying" or whatever comes in.
>>
>>CANN
>
>Had thought about that too. Will go along with it if others like it.
There is also ICan - Internet Campaign Against Nannying (which also has
a significant meaning of its own)
--
^Thunder^
stripey, 05 Sep 2005 22:04:27
In message , ^Thunder^
writes
>In message , stripey
> writes
>>In message , ^Thunder^
>> writes
>>>In message <84fA2+LwRKHDFwKE@nildram.co.uk>, stripey
>>> writes
>>>>
>>>>I appreciate that such a name doesn't immediately get across what the
>>>>group is about, but that's where a strapline like "the campaign against
>>>>net nannying" or whatever comes in.
>>>
>>>CANN
>>
>>Had thought about that too. Will go along with it if others like it.
>
>There is also ICan - Internet Campaign Against Nannying (which also has
>a significant meaning of its own)
That works for me.
--
stripey
"There's only one way of life - and that's your own"
SnowdropExplodes, 05 Sep 2005 22:04:36
--- ^Thunder^ wrote:
> "the campaign against
> >>>net nannying" or whatever comes in.
> >>
> >>CANN
> >
> >Had thought about that too. Will go along with it
> if others like it.
>
> There is also ICan - Internet Campaign Against
> Nannying (which also has
> a significant meaning of its own)
I don't like this, because I think that nannyware is
an important weapon on our side. It enables us t
present a clear case for why the availability of
extreme porn on the net is not a threat to public
morals, because those who don't want to see it can
screen it out themselves.
If we make it look like we're against nannyware (by
using a name like "campaign against net nannying") it
looks like we want children and others who might be
offended, to see the stuff we want to see.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
Graham Marsden, 05 Sep 2005 22:07:43
-OJT- wrote:
>>>>>net nannying" or whatever comes in.
>>>>
>>>>CANN
>>
>>There is also ICan - Internet Campaign Against
>>Nannying (which also has
>>a significant meaning of its own)
>
> I don't like this, because I think that nannyware is
> an important weapon on our side.
Campaign Against the Nannying Enforcement State
Or CANES for short?! ;-)
stripey, 05 Sep 2005 22:36:24
In message <431CB3E0.5080003@affordable-leather.co.uk>, graham
writes
>-OJT- wrote:
>
>>>>>>net nannying" or whatever comes in.
>>>>>
>>>>>CANN
>>>
>>>There is also ICan - Internet Campaign Against
>>>Nannying (which also has
>>>a significant meaning of its own)
>>
>> I don't like this, because I think that nannyware is
>> an important weapon on our side.
>
>Campaign Against the Nannying Enforcement State
>
>Or CANES for short?! ;-)
It's very witty, but personally I'm not in favour of acronyms that imply
that opposition to the proposals only comes from bdsm-ers, who can then
be dismissed as acting in their own self-interest. (OK, I know I'm
contradicting myself with my earlier suggestion of GAG, but that did
have the wordplay on censorship too).
I agree with Lol that we're up against some very formidable opposition
in the form of Mrs Longhurst and the alliance of 80s-style
neo-Dworkinites and Mary Whitehouse types who will rally behind her. We
are likely be on the losing side if they resort to the emotive argument.
Unfortunately, Lol is almost certainly right when he says the only way
we can play this is to appear eminently sensible and rely on the facts
and pure evidence. I'd be very wary of us going on marches where someone
is cracking a bullwhip, as happened on SM Pride marches in the past; it
will just create an impression of self-indulgent tossers who don't care
if nice women like Jane Longhurst are murdered, just as long as we still
get our jollies. I feel the campaign has to include a broad coalition of
libertarians, feminists against censorship, civil liberties and human
rights activists etc. That's why I would not be in favour of a name or
acronym that implies we're exclusively bdsm-ers.
--
stripey
"There's only one way of life - and that's your own"
Lothario, 05 Sep 2005 22:56:58
To name something is to create it. Unfortunately, it's an
arse-about-face way of choosing a campaigning strategy.
The best thing to do would be to wait until after Friday's meeting,
when hopefully we will have a better idea of what the campaign stands
for, which issues it'll focus on and who's going to be included.
ICANN is the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the
nearest thing the net has to a governing body.
http://www.icann.org/
The BBC's community action portal, Action Network, used to be called
iCan. I don't know why they changed their name. Maybe ICANN
complained. Either way, that one is comprehensively taken and by an
organisation which the outsider might momentarily get confused about.
rosalee, 05 Sep 2005 23:07:48
I was just thinking this earlier this evening. That would make much more sense. So yes, I agree!
Ginny
----- Original Message -----
: Lothario, 05 Sep 2005 23:07:48
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 10:56 PM
Subject: Re: [backlash] What's in a name
To name something is to create it. Unfortunately, it's an
arse-about-face way of choosing a campaigning strategy.
The best thing to do would be to wait until after Friday's meeting,
when hopefully we will have a better idea of what the campaign stands
for, which issues it'll focus on and who's going to be included.
ICANN is the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the
nearest thing the net has to a governing body.
http://www.icann.org/
The BBC's community action portal, Action Network, used to be called
iCan. I don't know why they changed their name. Maybe ICANN
complained. Either way, that one is comprehensively taken and by an
organisation which the outsider might momentarily get confused about.
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D198
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
Sioux Nation, 05 Sep 2005 23:08:11
I'm not entirely convinced that choosing a bland non-aggressive name will be
of much use against the proposed bill.
Having watched this government brush aside the objections of anti-war
campaigners to name but a few 100,000, I feel that something more "In your
face" is called for.
How about the "Freedom from Unwarranted Censorship Campaign" or FUCC for
short?
bobette, 05 Sep 2005 23:34:15
Didn't the gay rights movement use 'Stonewall' very successfully.
As opposed to Queers Against Nasty Government Opposition...
----- Original Message -----
, 05 Sep 2005 23:34:15
To:
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 7:16 PM
>
>
> Author wrote:
>> I don't really like CAFE - it's to woolly and vague. And doesn't sound
>> like a stirring call to battle in the name of freedom. 'Backlash' at
>> least has some notion of protest...
>> bx
>
> The more I hear it, the more it grows. Thinking back to the '70's and
> '80's, I worked with a number of 'Stop the...' campaigns which generally
> united people around the principle that they didn't want something to
> happen.
>
> Best names, then, were either 'Stop the {insert thing here}' or broad
> umbrella words (like Backlash) that didn't tie its supporters too much to
> one thing.
>
> Why? Well, as Fuschia has already noted, this board already spans a wide
> divergence of views, from those who take a Livertarian perspective to
> those who see this campaign as being mainly about bdsm.
>
> If you fix the campaign name too firmly in one camp, then by definition,
> you alientate another... Doesn't matter which camp.
>
> Therefore, I would say go with 'Backlash'....because its short, snappy and
> unifying.... and under that as umbrella, allow people to develop and
> pursue their different strategies toward the agreed end.
>
> Regards,
>
> M
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse
> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D184
>
>
bobette, 05 Sep 2005 23:34:18
Didn't the gay rights movement use 'Stonewall' very successfully.
As opposed to Queers Against Nasty Government Opposition...
----- Original Message -----
, 05 Sep 2005 23:34:18
To:
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 7:16 PM
>
>
> Author wrote:
>> I don't really like CAFE - it's to woolly and vague. And doesn't sound
>> like a stirring call to battle in the name of freedom. 'Backlash' at
>> least has some notion of protest...
>> bx
>
> The more I hear it, the more it grows. Thinking back to the '70's and
> '80's, I worked with a number of 'Stop the...' campaigns which generally
> united people around the principle that they didn't want something to
> happen.
>
> Best names, then, were either 'Stop the {insert thing here}' or broad
> umbrella words (like Backlash) that didn't tie its supporters too much to
> one thing.
>
> Why? Well, as Fuschia has already noted, this board already spans a wide
> divergence of views, from those who take a Livertarian perspective to
> those who see this campaign as being mainly about bdsm.
>
> If you fix the campaign name too firmly in one camp, then by definition,
> you alientate another... Doesn't matter which camp.
>
> Therefore, I would say go with 'Backlash'....because its short, snappy and
> unifying.... and under that as umbrella, allow people to develop and
> pursue their different strategies toward the agreed end.
>
> Regards,
>
> M
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse
> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D184
>
>
Lothario, 05 Sep 2005 23:40:56
The trend in the non-government sector is to use names (not always
meaningful ones) rather than acronyms or irritating backronyms.
A well-chosen name (it could be two words) would be more to my taste
than an acronym. But then, I wouldn't want to legislate on matters of
taste. ;)
On 9/5/05, bob wrote:
> Didn't the gay rights movement use 'Stonewall' very successfully.
>
> As opposed to Queers Against Nasty Government Opposition...
> ----- Original Message -----
: , 05 Sep 2005 23:40:56
> To:
> Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 7:16 PM
> Subject: [backlash] RE: What''s in a name
>
>
> >
> >
> > Author wrote:
> >> I don't really like CAFE - it's to woolly and vague. And doesn't sound
> >> like a stirring call to battle in the name of freedom. 'Backlash' at
> >> least has some notion of protest...
> >> bx
> >
> > The more I hear it, the more it grows. Thinking back to the '70's and
> > '80's, I worked with a number of 'Stop the...' campaigns which generally
> > united people around the principle that they didn't want something to
> > happen.
> >
> > Best names, then, were either 'Stop the {insert thing here}' or broad
> > umbrella words (like Backlash) that didn't tie its supporters too much to
> > one thing.
> >
> > Why? Well, as Fuschia has already noted, this board already spans a wide
> > divergence of views, from those who take a Livertarian perspective to
> > those who see this campaign as being mainly about bdsm.
> >
> > If you fix the campaign name too firmly in one camp, then by definition,
> > you alientate another... Doesn't matter which camp.
> >
> > Therefore, I would say go with 'Backlash'....because its short, snappy and
> > unifying.... and under that as umbrella, allow people to develop and
> > pursue their different strategies toward the agreed end.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > M
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> > visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
> >
> > To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
> >
> > Report abuse
> > http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D184
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D202
>
Manniq, 05 Sep 2005 23:52:58
Author wrote:
> Unfortunately, Lol is almost certainly right when he says the only way
> we can play this is to appear eminently sensible and rely on the facts
> and pure evidence. I'd be very wary of us going on marches where someone
> is cracking a bullwhip, as happened on SM Pride marches in the past; it
> will just create an impression of self-indulgent tossers who don't care
> if nice women like Jane Longhurst are murdered, just as long as we still
> get our jollies. I feel the campaign has to include a broad coalition of
> libertarians, feminists against censorship, civil liberties and human
> rights activists etc. That's why I would not be in favour of a name or
> acronym that implies we're exclusively bdsm-ers.
> --
> stripey
> "There's only one way of life - and that's your own"
Actually, whilst I think you are both talking a good deal of sense, I don't wholly agree. By all means talk good rational stuff when the chips are down.
But at base, what is important is the narrative. The story you have to tell. (And this is where I disagree with snowdrop about getting the facts all in a row: the public does not hear facts, it hears stories).
The government and associated allies already have several such stories lined up: grieving mum begs nation to pass law to validate her daughter's murder. Government listens to people and responds with good common sense proposals. That sort of thing.
In contrast, as you quite rightly say, the stories we tell to counter the above mustn't be counter-productive. Bunch of leather-clad fashionistas stamp their little booties in temper tantrum is one that I can easily see coming up. Also, total weirdo appears on Panorama and shows why bdsm really should be illegal (which is why we need to be ever so careful about our public face). But maybe there are a few stories we can start to nudge a bit more centre stage where the mainstream media will pick them up.
Two such might be: government proposals will destroy responsible (bdsm) community and make lone nutters much more likely in future. And: bunch of sexually repressed religious bigots want to impose their morality on everyone else.
Right now, the latter feels like it might play rather well. No: this must never be an overt part of our campaigning. But if, perhaps some people wish to do a little background research, I would be happy to assist.
Regards,
M
The_ICM, 05 Sep 2005 23:53:08
Since the basis upon which the intended government legislation is founded is flimsy to say the least may I suggest
CAGED
Campaign Against Governmentally Evoked Deceit
Regards,
The ICM
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
SnowdropExplodes, 06 Sep 2005 00:25:13
--- Master Ice wrote:
> Since the basis upon which the intended government
> legislation is founded is flimsy to say the least
> may I suggest
>
> CAGED
>
> Campaign Against Governmentally Evoked Deceit
Translates as "conspiracy theorists against anything
the government says, cos it's all LIES maaaaan!"
not the image we wish to portray.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
SnowdropExplodes, 06 Sep 2005 00:30:19
--- manniq@hotmail.com wrote:
> But at base, what is important is the narrative.
> The story you have to tell. (And this is where I
> disagree with snowdrop about getting the facts all
> in a row: the public does not hear facts, it hears
> stories).
Well, I agree, but the thing is there are two kinds of
stories: make-believe and based-on-reality. We need
our stories to be the latter, not the former.
Therefore, before we start to tell stories, we need to
know the truth, so that our stories fit with the truth
and we don't have to bend the truth to fit our stories
(which is, alas, what the government frequently tries
to do, and has been caught at over things like Iraq).
>
> The government and associated allies already have
> several such stories lined up: grieving mum begs
> nation to pass law to validate her daughter's
> murder. Government listens to people and responds
> with good common sense proposals. That sort of
> thing.
>
> In contrast, as you quite rightly say, the stories
> we tell to counter the above mustn't be
> counter-productive. Bunch of leather-clad
> fashionistas stamp their little booties in temper
> tantrum is one that I can easily see coming up.
> Also, total weirdo appears on Panorama and shows why
> bdsm really should be illegal (which is why we need
> to be ever so careful about our public face). But
> maybe there are a few stories we can start to nudge
> a bit more centre stage where the mainstream media
> will pick them up.
>
> Two such might be: government proposals will destroy
> responsible (bdsm) community and make lone nutters
> much more likely in future. And: bunch of sexually
> repressed religious bigots want to impose their
> morality on everyone else.
>
> Right now, the latter feels like it might play
> rather well. No: this must never be an overt part
> of our campaigning. But if, perhaps some people
> wish to do a little background research, I would be
> happy to assist.
What sort of research would help?
How does one research a "story" or narrative?
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
Graham Marsden, 06 Sep 2005 00:39:46
stripey wrote:
>> Campaign Against the Nannying Enforcement State
>>
>> Or CANES for short?! ;-)
>
> It's very witty, but personally I'm not in favour of acronyms that imply
> that opposition to the proposals only comes from bdsm-ers,
You're right (that wasn't actually meant to be a serious suggestion!)
> Unfortunately, Lol is almost certainly right when he says the only way
> we can play this is to appear eminently sensible and rely on the facts
> and pure evidence.
Yep, I can agree with that.
demolitionred, 06 Sep 2005 06:44:09
New anti porn laws alliance?
its to the point, inoffensive, non-BDSM....
The_ICM, 06 Sep 2005 07:33:44
Thank you, the reply was exactly as I expected it would be - demeaning and without substance.
Enjoy the fight.
----- Original Message -----
: -OJT-, 06 Sep 2005 07:33:44
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 12:25 AM
Subject: Re: [backlash] RE: What''s in a name
--- Master Ice wrote:
> Since the basis upon which the intended government
> legislation is founded is flimsy to say the least
> may I suggest
>
> CAGED
>
> Campaign Against Governmentally Evoked Deceit
Translates as "conspiracy theorists against anything
the government says, cos it's all LIES maaaaan!"
not the image we wish to portray.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D207
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
Manniq, 06 Sep 2005 09:19:10
Author wrote:
> --- manniq@hotmail.com wrote:
> > But at base, what is important is the narrative.
> > The story you have to tell. (And this is where I
> > disagree with snowdrop about getting the facts all
> > in a row: the public does not hear facts, it hears
> > stories).
> Well, I agree, but the thing is there are two kinds of
> stories: make-believe and based-on-reality. We need
> our stories to be the latter, not the former.
> Therefore, before we start to tell stories, we need to
> know the truth, so that our stories fit with the truth
> and we don't have to bend the truth to fit our stories
> (which is, alas, what the government frequently tries
> to do, and has been caught at over things like Iraq).
Hmmm. My past is slipping. The underlying thought process here is that there is overt campaigning - the sort of thing we stick in our leaflets and petitions and websites which MUST be watertight. And then there is the behind the scenes stuff. The unattributable.
Make no mistake: the government will use it on us. If anyone in the campaign (or on the organisaing committee) has a criminal record, that will miraculously find its way to moralistic reporters, who will tell stories about how the sort of people who wish this proposal not to succeed are perverts and crims.
We need to be ready, quietly, behind the scenes, to tell our own stories.
> > Two such might be: government proposals will destroy
> > responsible (bdsm) community and make lone nutters
> > much more likely in future. And: bunch of sexually
> > repressed religious bigots want to impose their
> > morality on everyone else.
> >
> > Right now, the latter feels like it might play
> > rather well. No: this must never be an overt part
> > of our campaigning. But if, perhaps some people
> > wish to do a little background research, I would be
> > happy to assist.
> What sort of research would help?
> How does one research a "story" or narrative?
Well, the truth is very helpful. If it turned out that Paul Goggins, in a previous role, had been charged with interfering with a goat, that would just make our day.
But since I doubt he has (though it would be a lovely rumour to get going) what you do is start with known facts....and build rumour and likely speculation around that. One thing that does start to emerge is the very church-y nature of those pushing this proposal. Mr Goggins is, I believe, an active Christian... look up Pio Smith, too (who is there to receive responses to the consultation).... and so on.
If - and it is too early to say - the religious angle is going to play, that also defines another tack we might wish to take - which is to find sympathetic church people to defend our point of view.
Best of all would be to get a comment from the vicar (or whatever) at Goggins' church saying he doesn't see what all the fuss is about.
Oh, yes: meetings between Labour types and fundamentalist christians in the US would be very helpful. That sort of thing. So far, very unformed thought process....but I hope this shows you the sort of direction one might take.
This is not about researching the 'truth'. Rather, it is about amassing enough material to make a story that is unhelpful to the government stand up.
Regards,
M
> Ta,
> SnowdropExplodes
> ___________________________________________________________
> How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
> snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
Lothario, 06 Sep 2005 10:41:43
I would advise keeping personal attacks to a minimum, and restricting
them to politicians and campaigners that have evident contradictory
behaviour or conflicts of interest.
I don't care whether Goggins is Jesus Christ himself or an athiest:
the point is that his department needs to come up with a better
rationale than it has for what it proposes to do.
Civil servants are not generally fair game for any kind of criticism.
Pio Smith (hi, Pio!) is presumably middle-ranking and doesn't have any
significant influence on policy. If it turned out they (he/she?) ran a
sheep-shagging site, it would be embarassing for the government and
would cost them their job but it wouldn't effect the policy. Hauling
John Scarlett over the coals for the intelligence failures relating to
WMD in Iraq is fair enough. Criticising the religious persuasion of a
middle-ranking official is not.
No doubt many people pushing for this law are coming from a religious
persuasion, but attacking them for that in itself would be divisive.
We need to be able to persuade people even from that background that
this is not a proper action of government and that it won't have the
effect that they desire.
Most people (apparently) wouldn't consider it a criticism, but Martin
Salter MP, sponsor of the Jane Longhurst Petition, is an ardent
proponent of angling and is Labour's spokesman on angling and
shooting. This isn't "dirt", it's something that he's publicly proud
of. In fairness, I don't know whether he proposed the ban on
bestiality images or whether he supports it, but if he does, animal
welfare supporters of this proposal might want to ask why he's against
the aforementioned sheep shagging photos and in favour of killing fish
and shooting birds for fun.
Note that Salter is not a minister, just a campaigning backbencher.
adrian, 06 Sep 2005 10:56:59
At 09:19 06/09/2005 +0100, you wrote:
>Well, the truth is very helpful. If it turned out that Paul Goggins, in a
previous role, had been charged with interfering with a goat, that would
just make our day.
>
>But since I doubt he has (though it would be a lovely rumour to get going)
what you do is start with known facts....and build rumour and likely
speculation around that. One thing that does start to emerge is the very
church-y nature of those pushing this proposal. Mr Goggins is, I believe,
an active Christian... look up Pio Smith, too (who is there to receive
responses to the consultation).... and so on.
>
Look, I'm not trying to attack you over this, but the end is pure but the
means are not only dodgy but very likely to backfire. Surely while we're
talking about this government, one thing which is very clear is that their
more disreputable attempts to spin have a way of backfiring on them. Even
when they're not caught in the act, the mere attack ad hominem from
wherever it seems to originate makes people with an open mind reappraise
the whole situation, not usually to the attacker's credit.
'But how could we get caught in the act?' you ask. Well, let' s start with
the fact that your post is now on an open website.
By scoring points, by being 'seen to be right' rather than upholding what
_is_ right, we might win this battle but be more likely to lose the war.
Look at the gays, it wouldn't matter how many repressive laws had been
passed, by now they'd all be repealed, or at least unenforced and
unenforceable, because the moral position has changed, bringing the
government and the ECHR with it. That is what I call a real victory, and
that's what we should be working for.
If being totally honourable were to damage our short-term position , it
would be an unfortunate dilemma. However, I don't think it will, or not
for longer than the attention span of the media, which is a tiny fraction
of the time during which our actions can affect the outcome.
Manniq, 06 Sep 2005 14:48:45
Author wrote:
> I would advise keeping personal attacks to a minimum, and restricting
> them to politicians and campaigners that have evident contradictory
> behaviour or conflicts of interest.
> I don't care whether Goggins is Jesus Christ himself or an athiest:
> the point is that his department needs to come up with a better
> rationale than it has for what it proposes to do.
Indeed. I have no problem with this.
My point is NOT about personal attacks on individuals - although that may occasionally feature, so much as creating stories. That tends to be how public opinion functions.
Whose story/narrative is more attractive/believable?
At present, the government has some very good stories on its back-burner: the bdsm community has fewer.
We need to make our own: some will be positive, some negative.
Regards,
M
Peter Green, 06 Sep 2005 21:09:07
On 9/5/05, Master Ice wrote:
> CAGED
> Campaign Against Governmentally Evoked Deceit
I think we must avoid anything as contrived as this. We don't want to
come across as people who enjoy playing word games for their own sake
- it could have a negative impact on how our message is received.
Keep it plain and simple. Think Sun reader.
--
Peter
Manniq, 06 Sep 2005 21:09:19
Author wrote:
> I don't really like CAFE - it's to woolly and vague. And doesn't sound like a stirring call to battle in the name of freedom. 'Backlash' at least has some notion of protest...
> bx
Has anyone suggested 'Option 4'?
SnowdropExplodes, 06 Sep 2005 21:47:42
--- manniq@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
> Author wrote:
> > I don't really like CAFE - it's to woolly and
> vague. And doesn't sound like a stirring call to
> battle in the name of freedom. 'Backlash' at least
> has some notion of protest...
> > bx
>
>
> Has anyone suggested 'Option 4'?
It sounds good, but there are too many other "4"s out
there: Clause 4, Group 4, etc and it doesn't say
anything at all about what the campaign
supports/oppposes.
Maybe add an abstract noun (such as "Freedom",
"Liberty", "Consent", "Privacy" etc) so it might
become Option 4 Consent, or Option 4 Freedom (for
example).
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
«No Name Set», 06 Sep 2005 23:13:17
'Stonewall' was a gay bar in New York which became famous when
yet another raid by the police on gay bars was met by a
clientele who'd had enough of such oppression and fought back,
and started riots that lasted two days.
The gay pride marches, and other events around what was
originally called 'Stonewall Week', were to commemorate the
anniversaries of the Stonewall riots.
It is not without irony, or opposition, that the name should be
adopted by a "nice, respectable" law-reformist lobby group.
--
Rosemary
adrian, 06 Sep 2005 23:31:21
At 21:09 06/09/2005 +0100, you wrote:
>Has anyone suggested 'Option 4'?
Option 4 is good. Reasonably memorable, not snappy in a trivial sense, and
makes people think 'what's that?'.
backdooruk, 06 Sep 2005 23:31:43
Rosemary wrote:
> 'Stonewall' was a gay bar in New York which became famous when
> yet another raid by the police on gay bars was met by a
> clientèle who'd had enough of such oppression and fought back,
> and started riots that lasted two days.
As I understand it, the 'raid' was to enforce a city ordinance making it criminal to dress in the clothes of the opposite sex. when a couple of cross butch dykes were arrested for wearing trousers the largely gay male clientèle of the bar came to their defense.
Not only did it start the politicization of gay rights, it also was the starting point of alliance between gay men and lesbians over that politicization and the idea of a common homosexual comunity.
It occurs to me that the position of the BDSM community over these stupid proposals is somewhat similar.
- Chris
stripey, 06 Sep 2005 23:51:51
In message <3.0.5.32.20050906233255.00e9b4f8@localhost>, Adrian
writes
>At 21:09 06/09/2005 +0100, you wrote:
>>Has anyone suggested 'Option 4'?
>
>Option 4 is good. Reasonably memorable, not snappy in a trivial sense, and
>makes people think 'what's that?'.
Sorry to be Mr Thickie, but this one is sailing right over my head. What
is "Option 4" alluding to?
--
stripey
"There's only one way of life - and that's your own"
backdooruk, 07 Sep 2005 00:00:36
stripey wrote:
> What is "Option 4" alluding to?
Option 4 is "Do nothing" in the consultation document.
- Chris
adrian, 07 Sep 2005 00:07:50
At 23:46 06/09/2005 +0100, you wrote:
>Sorry to be Mr Thickie, but this one is sailing right over my head. What
>is "Option 4" alluding to?
You see, it's working already.
The document presents four options: 1. to add possession to banned actions
of everything covered by the Obscene Publications Act, to do as they
broadly outline 2 as a change to the OPA, or 3 as a separate Act. Or
Option 4, do nothing.
I was tempted by 'Option 4 Consent' but it's a bit Porn R Us. 'Option 4'
has a ring but sounds serious and unemotive.
A Google search shows that countless websites contain lists of options
numbering four and over. But also that no organisation has used it for its
name, or at least none the get into the top 100. Clause 4 and the like may
exist, it would be surprising if they didn't with names of such a simple type.
It's growing on me more and more.
backdooruk, 07 Sep 2005 00:25:09
adrian wrote:
> I was tempted by 'Option 4 Consent' but it's a bit Porn R Us. 'Option 4'
> has a ring but sounds serious and unemotive.
I like the idea and sound of "option 4: *something*"
like for instance:
Option 4: In our own minds
- Chris
demolitionred, 07 Sep 2005 11:24:15
the point of this debate, for me, was to shake out -- in the week before the meeting -- what we think we are about, how we view ourselves, how we will sell ourselves, what we want...this saves a lot of time in the meeting ..we have spent a week toing -and froing ...no time for that on Friday...
but I think we have established some sense of identity, of what we are up against, where our common ground is and where our differences lie.
Thank you all.
Graham Marsden, 07 Sep 2005 11:50:20
Adrian wrote:
>>Sorry to be Mr Thickie, but this one is sailing right over my head. What
>>is "Option 4" alluding to?
>
> The document presents four options: 1. to add possession to banned actions
> of everything covered by the Obscene Publications Act, to do as they
> broadly outline 2 as a change to the OPA, or 3 as a separate Act. Or
> Option 4, do nothing.
A problem with that is that a hostile tabloid press could spin this as
"Pervets say 'Do nothing about the filth that killed Jane Longhurst'!".
As I mentioned in my initial critique of the consultation, the
government are presenting a False Dilemma by giving a set of options as
if they are the *only* ones, when, of course, there's always also the
option of "none of the above".
Although, technically, what we *want* is for them to "do nothing" we
can't present ourselves in this way as we risk misrepresentation as I
described above.
We need something that will point up that the proposed laws are
unworkable, untenable and unacceptable in a free society.
Amelie, 07 Sep 2005 11:56:36
I do not feel "option 4" is an option. Do nothing and eventually someone
will revive their anxieties about the more extreme and unacceptable
practices which are the main emotive focus of the attack. The problem is
indeed how to make the whole thing look ridiculous and join forces with
other groups who have an interest in freedom of thought and expression and
in responsible self-determination.
----- Original Message -----
, 07 Sep 2005 11:56:36
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 11:31 PM
Rosemary wrote:
> 'Stonewall' was a gay bar in New York which became famous when
> yet another raid by the police on gay bars was met by a
> clientèle who'd had enough of such oppression and fought back,
> and started riots that lasted two days.
As I understand it, the 'raid' was to enforce a city ordinance making it
criminal to dress in the clothes of the opposite sex. when a couple of cross
butch dykes were arrested for wearing trousers the largely gay male
clientèle of the bar came to their defense.
Not only did it start the politicization of gay rights, it also was the
starting point of alliance between gay men and lesbians over that
politicization and the idea of a common homosexual comunity.
It occurs to me that the position of the BDSM community over these stupid
proposals is somewhat similar.
- Chris
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D289
E.Vie, 07 Sep 2005 12:02:56
With respect, why don't we make a poll instead of
spending all the time with infinite possibilities ?
Group owner what do you think?
--- Amelie wrote:
> I do not feel "option 4" is an option. Do nothing
> and eventually someone
> will revive their anxieties about the more extreme
> and unacceptable
> practices which are the main emotive focus of the
> attack. The problem is
> indeed how to make the whole thing look ridiculous
> and join forces with
> other groups who have an interest in freedom of
> thought and expression and
> in responsible self-determination.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
: , 07 Sep 2005 12:02:56
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 11:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [backlash] RE: What''''s in a name
>
>
> Rosemary wrote:
> > 'Stonewall' was a gay bar in New York which became
> famous when
> > yet another raid by the police on gay bars was met
> by a
> > clientèle who'd had enough of such oppression and
> fought back,
> > and started riots that lasted two days.
>
> As I understand it, the 'raid' was to enforce a city
> ordinance making it
> criminal to dress in the clothes of the opposite
> sex. when a couple of cross
> butch dykes were arrested for wearing trousers the
> largely gay male
> clientèle of the bar came to their defense.
>
> Not only did it start the politicization of gay
> rights, it also was the
> starting point of alliance between gay men and
> lesbians over that
> politicization and the idea of a common homosexual
> comunity.
>
> It occurs to me that the position of the BDSM
> community over these stupid
> proposals is somewhat similar.
>
> - Chris
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or
> start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email:
> Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse
>
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D289
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or
> start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email:
> Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse
>
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D304
>
rosalee, 07 Sep 2005 13:28:34
Good idea! But I also think waiting until the meeting
or just after before making a final decision is a good
one too.
Ginny
--- "E.Vie" wrote:
> With respect, why don't we make a poll instead of
> spending all the time with infinite possibilities ?
>
> Group owner what do you think?
>
>
>
>
backdooruk, 07 Sep 2005 13:38:00
Perhaps a simple name describing our opposition to censorship of what we see would be appropriate. In part homage to Unfettered, how about: 'Unblinkered'
Unfortunately it's used for a betting tips website, but then perhaps is could be 'Option 4: Unblinkered'?
- Chris
clare, 07 Sep 2005 15:06:31
Author wrote:
> Perhaps a simple name describing our opposition to censorship of what we see would be appropriate. In part homage to Unfettered, how about: 'Unblinkered'
> Unfortunately it's used for a betting tips website, but then perhaps is could be 'Option 4: Unblinkered'?
> - Chris
I like Unblinkered, even without the Option 4.
It sounds like a steady reasonable adult gaze.
Lothario, 07 Sep 2005 17:59:17
Option 4 is only meaningful in the context of the current consultation
document. After 9 December it'll be obsolete, no matter what happens.
I'd stick to something more general.
clare, 07 Sep 2005 18:12:13
Author wrote:
> Perhaps a simple name describing our opposition to censorship of what we see would be appropriate. In part homage to Unfettered, how about: 'Unblinkered'
> Unfortunately it's used for a betting tips website, but then perhaps is could be 'Option 4: Unblinkered'?
> - Chris
I only just noticed your mention that Unblinkered.com is aleady in use by tipsters. Are we allowed to use Unblinkered as the organization name and Unblinkered View or Unblinkered Action for the website? No chance of confusing a political pressure group with a tipster is there?
backdooruk, 08 Sep 2005 08:20:19
Clare wrote:
> I only just noticed your mention that Unblinkered.com is aleady in use by tipsters. Are we allowed to use Unblinkered as the organization name and Unblinkered View or Unblinkered Action for the website? No chance of confusing a political pressure group with a tipster is there?
"Unblinkered View" is quite a good name for website *And* the group IMO.
- Chris