Thread

The internal and the external arguments

Manniq, 07 Nov 2005 12:16:18

I will post some stuff up soon on the Proposal - porobably a powerpoint pack that people can use and add to as they feel appropriate.

Perhaps it is worth acknowldeging that there are two forms of argument - and that being very worth and intellectual, most of the people on here are really focussing on one sort of counter-argument, to the exclusion of the other.

Please don't get all hung up on the legitimacy of some of what follows, since I KNOW that it will not find favour with everyone. The point, however, is the underlying flavour.

Most of the counter-argument so far has been internal to the paper. It has, at some level or other - even the ones that say there should be no legislation - taken the paper as legitimate output and dealt with it as an intellectual construct that must be defeated. Hence all the stuff about what the offense should be, the inconsistency in the Act, whether this or that particular detail makes sense.

However, there is an external way of looking at this - in a sense, the very way in which the government SAYS it should be seen - and that is for the messages it creates to society as a whole and its general effect on society. These messages are potentially MUCH harsher and I can well see many on here eschewing such arguments as just too far below the belt. SO I put them forward and leave people to make up their mind.

1. This proposal comes from the most christian government in recent times. It is from a hardline catholic: and the civil service contact for a process that is likely to be challenged on the grounds that it fails to conform to proper procedure is noted on the internet for his religious affiliation. Backlash represents 4 million people: one side-effect of this proposal, inevitably, will be anti-christian and anti-catholic feeling.

2. This proposal ignores the fact that much of what happens nowadays on the internet is not business or criminal, but individuals 'doing their own thing'. It is perfectly reasonable to ask whether this proposal is not actually sponsored by either big business or organised crime - since it will have the effect of handing control of internet porn over to these two groups. Not so far-fetched, given that one of the prime beneficiaries will be the IWF - who are themselves unelected and run by big business.

So far this government has shown itself very happy to promote the interests of big business, even in areas that might be considered immoral. Bernie Ecclestone. The legislation on 24-hour drinking. Casinos. Is this just another of the places in which NEw Labour is taking some sort of covert back-hander?

3. Operation Ore has led to 39 suicides, hundreds of broken relationships, failed businesses, etc. That is also the effect of the heavy-handed application of the OPA. What - if any - consideration has the government given to the outcome of the heavy-handed application of this law to individuals? Has any research been carried out to determine whether every one of those suicides was by an active paedophile?

Is there any reason why the government will not research this subject? In fact, given the moralising tone of Mr Goggins et al, has he any concern for the damage to individuals and families that this proposal might cause - and has he any concern for the (innocent deaths) that will inevitably result?

4. The past history of heavy-handed policing of porn is not happy - with strong law leading to police corruption. The track record of the police under the OPA is not happy: they have a tendency to use the Act to bully, seizing material and business records, holding them for a long time - and then not always returning them all when a not guilty verdict is returned (or decision not to proceed with a prosecution).

My own personal fear, if this Proposal becomes law, is NOT being found guilty under it - but that if I irritate my local plod sufficiently, they may decide to harass me by removing my pc and business records for 12 to 18 months.

This proposal is a charter for corrupt and bullying policing.

5. Bizarrely, one of the main consequences of this proposal is likely to be an increase in child porn and a reduction in the police ability to control it. If this proposal goes into law, then it will add a very large community indeed to the people who have an interest in circumventing the law. Many new and effective techological defences will be created - and the police will be bogged down in fighting rearguard actions on the part of an enraged bdsm community.

6. If the government goes ahead with this proposal, then I think it fair to say that no detail of individual Labour sex lives will be off limits. They are effectively declaring war on a community and stating as given that you, my partner and everyone else on this board is no better than a rapist.

I suspect that this sense will percolate into the national media and result in the same sort of tears as John Major's 'family values' approach had.

OK. Blue touch paper lit.... I now stand back.

Please, please, read through the above carefully with an eye to what I am trying to say. These are NOT arguments about the detail of the proposal - but arguments about what message the proposal might be sending or what the outcome of such a proposal might be. Some people may wish to stand away from the proposal and consider that particular question a good deal more carefully.

Regards,

M

*** This message has been edited by Manniq on 07 Nov 2005 12:20:34 ***

guy, 07 Nov 2005 13:01:37

> I will post some stuff up soon on the Proposal - porobably a powerpoint pack
> that people can use and add to as they feel appropriate.
>
Well stated, I cannot disagree with any of these sentiments. But to make them
effectively I think it helps to not only state the general case, but cite a
paricular example:

eg one I have seized on for my response is that I presume it will continue to
be legal for a Christian Sunday school teacher to have his tiny tots colour in
graphic pictures of the cruxifixion of Christ and the martyrdom of the saints.
I recall doing that at Sunday School, and wonder to this day if it affected my
tastes in later life.

However under the Act it would be illegal for me to use a picture of Quakers
being scourged at the cart's tale, by Christians, from a C19 monograph, to
promote my adult-only medieval-theme community to adults. Indeed it will
probably be illegal for me to even possess that book at all, since its plates
depict realistic drawings of definitely non-consensual corporal punishment and
torture.

Academy Incorporated: turning fantasy into reality
Miss Prim's Muir Academy, Muir Academy For Maids,
The Academy Club and The Tawsingham Society:
fast friendly, helpful, discreet service, with integrity
www.academy-inc.com www.muir-academy.com guy@tawse.com
PO Box 135, Hereford, HR2 7WL, UK +44(0)1432 343100

Manniq, 07 Nov 2005 13:14:04

Absolutely - though I think you need to be very clear about what I am doing (and I think you have got the point). External arguments are arguments contingent on the FACT of this proposal being put forward, rather than the detail contained within it.

There are bvery many interesting arguments for and against the banning of Hate speech. But the FACT that the government put forward the religious hatred bill - whilst the Lib Dems or Tories probably would not - says a lot about the respective attitudes of each of those groups to speech.

Regards,

M
Author wrote:
> > I will post some stuff up soon on the Proposal - porobably a powerpoint pack
> > that people can use and add to as they feel appropriate.
> >
> Well stated, I cannot disagree with any of these sentiments. But to make them
> effectively I think it helps to not only state the general case, but cite a
> paricular example:
> eg one I have seized on for my response is that I presume it will continue to
> be legal for a Christian Sunday school teacher to have his tiny tots colour in
> graphic pictures of the cruxifixion of Christ and the martyrdom of the saints.
> I recall doing that at Sunday School, and wonder to this day if it affected my
> tastes in later life.
> However under the Act it would be illegal for me to use a picture of Quakers
> being scourged at the cart's tale, by Christians, from a C19 monograph, to
> promote my adult-only medieval-theme community to adults. Indeed it will
> probably be illegal for me to even possess that book at all, since its plates
> depict realistic drawings of definitely non-consensual corporal punishment and
> torture.
> Academy Incorporated: turning fantasy into reality
> Miss Prim's Muir Academy, Muir Academy For Maids,
> The Academy Club and The Tawsingham Society:
> fast friendly, helpful, discreet service, with integrity
> www.academy-inc.com www.muir-academy.com guy@tawse.com
> PO Box 135, Hereford, HR2 7WL, UK +44(0)1432 343100

demolitionred, 07 Nov 2005 13:37:08

Can you add these to the writeboard so that we have all the arguments in one place, rather than lots of parrallel discussions.

http://123.writeboard.com/e4ec177e09c4bb850/login
Password: backlash-uk

Thanks

clare, 07 Nov 2005 14:07:13

I support making the big brush points, but only when they are tied to evidence and information. The broader brush picture must not be at the cost of looking like conspiracy theorists.

A small point that is both internal and external:

The list of OPA regulated images that Inquisition obtained includes images of sex with a heavily menstruating woman. The perpetuation of male revulsion at our bodily functions originates in Levicitus and was developed by Aquinas in the Summa Theologica. I had hoped that St Paul deveoped this theme also, since his name is short hand for misogyny, but my Catholic theological contacts tell me they know nothing of Pauline commentary on this issue. ok put like that it looks academic. But the short point is that banning images of that kind is ancient biblical history, and ties to the Goggins' catholicism.

Anyway, I have tied this tiny point together with various others to make an argument that this legislation is not, as it claims, for the protection of women.

Manniq, 07 Nov 2005 14:27:07

Hmmmm.... I suspect my starting point is that there will always be SOME evidence in the argument and that is what we will have. This is not academic debate, but a clash of perceptions.

My starting point, almost always, is 'how would I play this in the public forum?'. Take many of the arguments we have agonised over so far, and imagine translating those into a soundbite. Now take the external stuff.

How's this:

Interviewer: "So what do you have against the government's proposals?"

Backlash person: "Our real concern is that they will have pretty much the opposite effect to the one stated by government. They will criminalise the private individual for what they choose to view. At the same time they will hand over the porn industry in the UK to big business and organised crime.

"If past evidence is anything to go by, this proposal is likely to encourage bad and corrupt policing. And of course, it will do nothing to help victims - or potential victims of sex crime. If anything, this proposal is likely to increase the frequency and seriousness of assault. I am more than happy to quote you research in support of that claim."

By all means play with the detail. However, as this campaign moves forward, it is the external perspective that we will need to think about. Yes: I understand that for you in putting together a response to the consultation, these might or might not be uppermost right now.

But I am putting together stories for opinion-formers - and those are not quite the same thing.

Regards,

M

Author wrote:
> I support making the big brush points, but only when they are tied to evidence and information. The broader brush picture must not be at the cost of looking like conspiracy theorists.
> A small point that is both internal and external:
> The list of OPA regulated images that Inquisition obtained includes images of sex with a heavily menstruating woman. The perpetuation of male revulsion at our bodily functions originates in Levicitus and was developed by Aquinas in the Summa Theologica. I had hoped that St Paul deveoped this theme also, since his name is short hand for misogyny, but my Catholic theological contacts tell me they know nothing of Pauline commentary on this issue. ok put like that it looks academic. But the short point is that banning images of that kind is ancient biblical history, and ties to the Goggins' catholicism.
> Anyway, I have tied this tiny point together with various others to make an argument that this legislation is not, as it claims, for the protection of women.

guy, 07 Nov 2005 14:40:55

> Absolutely - though I think you need to be very clear about what I am doing
> (and I think you have got the point). External arguments are arguments
> contingent on the FACT of this proposal being put forward, rather than the
> detail contained within it.
>
> There are bvery many interesting arguments for and against the banning of Hate
> speech. But the FACT that the government put forward the religious hatred bill
> - whilst the Lib Dems or Tories probably would not - says a lot about the
> respective attitudes of each of those groups to speech.
>
Yes, I was considering making the point that a significant minority of people
attending the Muir Academy have confided to me that they do so, at least in
part, to make sense of the beatings they took in their youth.

Of the faith groups: Catholic nuns seem guilty of child-battering most often,
closely followed by 'The Christian Bothers' (Catholic monks), next group would
be Scottish Presbyterians and English Evangelical 'Born Again Christians',
followed by Jews, followed by staff of Children's homes, of whatever faith or
none.

(I strongly suspect that Christians from an African background, Muslims, Sikhs
and Hindus would also have been high up the list, if more people from such
backgrounds attended Muir.)

Very few mention excessive corporal punishment, [or corporal punishment that in
retrospect seemed to be for the gratification of the punisher], at C of E or
Quaker schools. I have heard no reference to child-battering Humanists,
Atheists, or Agnostics or even Satanists - though I am quite prepared to
believe they exist.

Can any of our boffins lay their hands on any academic research that may
confirm (or deny) what my admittedly very small-sample and anecdotal data
suggest?

In view of this, and the first stirrings of moves to reintroduce Corporal
Punishment in Faith schools, I would strongly suggest that anyone in Government
with strong religious convictions should declare an interest and step out of
the room - as I many times had to do whilst a Councillor.

Academy Incorporated: turning fantasy into reality
Miss Prim's Muir Academy, Muir Academy For Maids,
The Academy Club and The Tawsingham Society:
fast friendly, helpful, discreet service, with integrity
www.academy-inc.com www.muir-academy.com guy@tawse.com
PO Box 135, Hereford, HR2 7WL, UK +44(0)1432 343100

clare, 07 Nov 2005 14:47:42

As I said, I support making the broad brush points. Detail is only any good when it supports broader points.

I am well aware of the difference between legal debate and soundbites.

Clare

Author wrote:
> Hmmmm.... I suspect my starting point is that there will always be SOME evidence in the argument and that is what we will have. This is not academic debate, but a clash of perceptions.
> My starting point, almost always, is 'how would I play this in the public forum?'. Take many of the arguments we have agonised over so far, and imagine translating those into a soundbite. Now take the external stuff.
> How's this:
> Interviewer: "So what do you have against the government's proposals?"
> Backlash person: "Our real concern is that they will have pretty much the opposite effect to the one stated by government. They will criminalise the private individual for what they choose to view. At the same time they will hand over the porn industry in the UK to big business and organised crime.
> "If past evidence is anything to go by, this proposal is likely to encourage bad and corrupt policing. And of course, it will do nothing to help victims - or potential victims of sex crime. If anything, this proposal is likely to increase the frequency and seriousness of assault. I am more than happy to quote you research in support of that claim."
> By all means play with the detail. However, as this campaign moves forward, it is the external perspective that we will need to think about. Yes: I understand that for you in putting together a response to the consultation, these might or might not be uppermost right now.
> But I am putting together stories for opinion-formers - and those are not quite the same thing.
> Regards,
> M
> Author wrote:
> > I support making the big brush points, but only when they are tied to evidence and information. The broader brush picture must not be at the cost of looking like conspiracy theorists.
> > A small point that is both internal and external:
> > The list of OPA regulated images that Inquisition obtained includes images of sex with a heavily menstruating woman. The perpetuation of male revulsion at our bodily functions originates in Levicitus and was developed by Aquinas in the Summa Theologica. I had hoped that St Paul deveoped this theme also, since his name is short hand for misogyny, but my Catholic theological contacts tell me they know nothing of Pauline commentary on this issue. ok put like that it looks academic. But the short point is that banning images of that kind is ancient biblical history, and ties to the Goggins' catholicism.
> > Anyway, I have tied this tiny point together with various others to make an argument that this legislation is not, as it claims, for the protection of women.

zak, 07 Nov 2005 17:01:07

Original Message:
-----------------

manniq@hotmail.com, 07 Nov 2005 17:01:07

Graham Marsden, 07 Nov 2005 19:37:33

manniq@hotmail.com wrote:

> Please don't get all hung up on the legitimacy of some of what follows,
> since I KNOW that it will not find favour with everyone. The point,
> however, is the underlying flavour.

I see what you're saying, although I'm a little dubious about the tone
of some of it as it strikes me as a bit Tabloid.

There again, theoretically if we pitched it right, we might be able to
get some of the anti-government Tabloids on board with this sort of content!

Cheers,
Graham.

Silver, 07 Nov 2005 20:24:11

Graham Marsden, 07 Nov 2005 21:07:31

Colin English wrote:

> Hello, you've probably read from Amelie's posting that we intend to draft
> and send a letter to all 615 ( I think) MP's so that they all become aware
> of the consultation long before the matter becomes a part of a parlimentary
> debate.

I haven't seen Amelie's posting yet, but this sounds like an excellent
idea to make sure they've all heard about it.

I presume it's going to be a single form letter done as a mailshot as it
would be too difficult to customise them for each individual MP's
beliefs, but does anyone on here know if there's any MPs who are
particuarly pro-civil liberties/ anti-censorship etc as a more targetted
approach might be useful in their cases.

If someone's got the time (unfortunately I don't at the moment), perhaps
a browse through http://www.theyworkforyou.com on which MPs have voted
and how on various "censorship" style motions might be useful?

Cheers,
Graham.

zak, 07 Nov 2005 22:43:33

Hey, everybody! Can we spell OOPS?
z

Original Message:
-----------------

Colin English flagoftheunion@hotmail.com, 07 Nov 2005 22:43:33

Dear Guy,

Hello, you've probably read from Amelie's posting that we intend to draft
and send a letter to all 615 ( I think) MP's so that they all become aware
of the consultation long before the matter becomes a part of a parlimentary
debate.

It occured to us that many who have not received a constituency letters may
be oblivious about the proposed bill.

Quite an undertaking as we are both busy with our own projects but we wil
have letters out over the next few weeks. I am also looking at other things
I can do to further the campaign but for obvious reasons I will prefer not
to report back to the group directly although Amelie might as she seems to
be active in the group again after briefly leaving in solidarity over me.

Regards,

Silver.

--
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%3D3256

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

Paul C. Dickie, 08 Nov 2005 04:55:52

In message <380-22005111722432412@M2W072.mail2web.com>,
zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk wrote:
>Hey, everybody! Can we spell OOPS?

Perhaps he was disoriented after having been locked in the cupboard for
so long?

--
< Paul >

Manniq, 08 Nov 2005 09:25:01

Graham,

First, I don't have an issue with Silver and Amelie doing this, because the more pressure the better. My only quibble would be if they started to represent themselves as Backlash - which I assume they will not, given Silver's comments so far on the group.

Second, though, if you follow the various points made on Lobbying, you will be aware already that this process is in hand. Therefore, off-board, I will stay in touch with Amelie a) to provide help and support should she need it (like, perhaps, a list of MP's e-mail addresses!) and b) to try and make sure we don't trip over one another.

She already has the document I put together on Lobbying - which is available on the Backlash site and which gives a lot of links to support material.

Third - and my reason for occasionally shaking my head in dismay at the way this group progresses: not everything works in terms of idea, instant gratification.

It has been posted on several occasions that contacts are being made with the Parliamentary parties: those contacts include meetings, discussions, etc. - and the hope is that by the time the dust has settled on all that, we will have much greater clarity as to where the different parties sit and maybe some allies at Westminster and beyond.

Details of those discussions are amongst the things that are staying relatively quiet: nothing would be more calculated to alienate or frighten off some MP's than to have news of ongoing discussions plastered all over a board of this kind and out in public.

So, whilst I repeat my happiness for these things to happen outside the group as well as inside, I do hope that everyone will recognise that this is a long game - there isn't even a bill on the table yet!

Regards,

M

Author wrote:
> Colin English wrote:
> > Hello, you've probably read from Amelie's posting that we intend to draft
> > and send a letter to all 615 ( I think) MP's so that they all become aware
> > of the consultation long before the matter becomes a part of a parlimentary
> > debate.
> I haven't seen Amelie's posting yet, but this sounds like an excellent
> idea to make sure they've all heard about it.
> I presume it's going to be a single form letter done as a mailshot as it
> would be too difficult to customise them for each individual MP's
> beliefs, but does anyone on here know if there's any MPs who are
> particuarly pro-civil liberties/ anti-censorship etc as a more targetted
> approach might be useful in their cases.
> If someone's got the time (unfortunately I don't at the moment), perhaps
> a browse through http://www.theyworkforyou.com on which MPs have voted
> and how on various "censorship" style motions might be useful?
> Cheers,
> Graham.

�No Name Set�, 08 Nov 2005 18:06:53

Stuff here for the mailer to eat

as per it's strange habits.

graham writes:
Colin English wrote:
> Hello, you've probably read from Amelie's posting that we intend to draft
> and send a letter to all 615 ( I think) MP's so that they all become aware
> of the consultation long before the matter becomes a part of a parlimentary
> debate.

I haven't seen Amelie's posting yet, but this sounds like an excellent
idea to make sure they've all heard about it.

I presume it's going to be a single form letter done as a mailshot as it
would be too difficult to customise them for each individual MP's

ME: I admire your energy and enterprise in setting out on such a
big undertaking. Please do be aware that MPs get masses of
circular letters, and such things may have little impact - far
less than a letter from a constituent - and indeed maybe in some
cases backfire.

Can you start on those with whom you have some grounds for
claiming a connectiono? - however tenuous, a connection is
better than nothing.

Graham again:
beliefs, but does anyone on here know if there's any MPs who are
particuarly pro-civil liberties/ anti-censorship etc as a more targetted
approach might be useful in their cases.

If someone's got the time (unfortunately I don't at the moment), perhaps
a browse through http://www.theyworkforyou.com on which MPs have voted
and how on various "censorship" style motions might be useful?

Thought we'd been there and someone was working on it?

--
Rosemary

Paul Tavener, 08 Nov 2005 19:39:35

This needs to be a co-ordinated effort and needs some planning. I would suggest it waits till December the 3rd, by which time I would be willing to help. If work is to start right now can someone please keep a record of who was sent what and when.

Author wrote:
> Colin English wrote:
> > Hello, you've probably read from Amelie's posting that we intend to draft
> > and send a letter to all 615 ( I think) MP's so that they all become aware
> > of the consultation long before the matter becomes a part of a parlimentary
> > debate.
> I haven't seen Amelie's posting yet, but this sounds like an excellent
> idea to make sure they've all heard about it.
> I presume it's going to be a single form letter done as a mailshot as it
> would be too difficult to customise them for each individual MP's
> beliefs, but does anyone on here know if there's any MPs who are
> particuarly pro-civil liberties/ anti-censorship etc as a more targetted
> approach might be useful in their cases.
> If someone's got the time (unfortunately I don't at the moment), perhaps
> a browse through http://www.theyworkforyou.com on which MPs have voted
> and how on various "censorship" style motions might be useful?
> Cheers,
> Graham.

Paul Tavener, 08 Nov 2005 21:23:33

After the 2nd December we need to plan this out and do it

Author wrote:
> Stuff here for the mailer to eat
> as per it's strange habits.
> graham writes:
> Colin English wrote:
> > Hello, you've probably read from Amelie's posting that we intend to draft
> > and send a letter to all 615 ( I think) MP's so that they all become aware
> > of the consultation long before the matter becomes a part of a parlimentary
> > debate.
> I haven't seen Amelie's posting yet, but this sounds like an excellent
> idea to make sure they've all heard about it.
> I presume it's going to be a single form letter done as a mailshot as it
> would be too difficult to customise them for each individual MP's
> ME: I admire your energy and enterprise in setting out on such a
> big undertaking. Please do be aware that MPs get masses of
> circular letters, and such things may have little impact - far
> less than a letter from a constituent - and indeed maybe in some
> cases backfire.
> Can you start on those with whom you have some grounds for
> claiming a connectiono? - however tenuous, a connection is
> better than nothing.
> Graham again:
> beliefs, but does anyone on here know if there's any MPs who are
> particuarly pro-civil liberties/ anti-censorship etc as a more targetted
> approach might be useful in their cases.
> If someone's got the time (unfortunately I don't at the moment), perhaps
> a browse through http://www.theyworkforyou.com on which MPs have voted
> and how on various "censorship" style motions might be useful?
> Thought we'd been there and someone was working on it?
> --
> Rosemary

Manniq, 08 Nov 2005 22:08:46

Paul - what I have said in response to the earlier post is that I am building a number of databases around lobbying. I would be very happy a) to provide lists from the database in its present form to help Amelie and Silver in their enterprise and b) would be grateful for (clearly cannot EXPECT) that people feed stuff back to me.

Regards,

M

Author wrote:
> This needs to be a co-ordinated effort and needs some planning. I would suggest it waits till December the 3rd, by which time I would be willing to help. If work is to start right now can someone please keep a record of who was sent what and when.
> Author wrote:
> > Colin English wrote:
> > > Hello, you've probably read from Amelie's posting that we intend to draft
> > > and send a letter to all 615 ( I think) MP's so that they all become aware
> > > of the consultation long before the matter becomes a part of a parlimentary
> > > debate.
> > I haven't seen Amelie's posting yet, but this sounds like an excellent
> > idea to make sure they've all heard about it.
> > I presume it's going to be a single form letter done as a mailshot as it
> > would be too difficult to customise them for each individual MP's
> > beliefs, but does anyone on here know if there's any MPs who are
> > particuarly pro-civil liberties/ anti-censorship etc as a more targetted
> > approach might be useful in their cases.
> > If someone's got the time (unfortunately I don't at the moment), perhaps
> > a browse through http://www.theyworkforyou.com on which MPs have voted
> > and how on various "censorship" style motions might be useful?
> > Cheers,
> > Graham.

Amelie, 09 Nov 2005 20:10:47

would be glad of any help, databases, lists of email addresses, would be
very welcome.

W e thought we would drip feed our own efforts a few at a time, as private
interested individuals, as there can not be too many representations. Then
if you decide you would like us to send a blanket mail as Backlash, we will
have the system in place to do so.-

Amelie and silver---- Original Message -----

, 09 Nov 2005 20:10:47

To:
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 10:08 PM

> Paul - what I have said in response to the earlier post is that I am
> building a number of databases around lobbying. I would be very happy a)
> to provide lists from the database in its present form to help Amelie and
> Silver in their enterprise and b) would be grateful for (clearly cannot
> EXPECT) that people feed stuff back to me.
>
> Regards,
>
> M
>
> Author wrote:
>> This needs to be a co-ordinated effort and needs some planning. I would
>> suggest it waits till December the 3rd, by which time I would be willing
>> to help. If work is to start right now can someone please keep a record
>> of who was sent what and when.
>> Author wrote:
>> > Colin English wrote:
>> > > Hello, you've probably read from Amelie's posting that we intend to
>> > > draft
>> > > and send a letter to all 615 ( I think) MP's so that they all become
>> > > aware
>> > > of the consultation long before the matter becomes a part of a
>> > > parlimentary
>> > > debate.
>> > I haven't seen Amelie's posting yet, but this sounds like an excellent
>> > idea to make sure they've all heard about it.
>> > I presume it's going to be a single form letter done as a mailshot as
>> > it
>> > would be too difficult to customise them for each individual MP's
>> > beliefs, but does anyone on here know if there's any MPs who are
>> > particuarly pro-civil liberties/ anti-censorship etc as a more
>> > targetted
>> > approach might be useful in their cases.
>> > If someone's got the time (unfortunately I don't at the moment),
>> > perhaps
>> > a browse through http://www.theyworkforyou.com on which MPs have voted
>> > and how on various "censorship" style motions might be useful?
>> > Cheers,
>> > Graham.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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%3D3392
>

adrian, 09 Nov 2005 20:36:10

Yes we should support this. I doubt we'd succeed at the moment in
agreeing a mail to go as Backlash and suspect if we tried the
resultant discussion would have a seriously negative effect on us
getting down to doing our own indiviudal work. I think individual
cases from slightly different points of view are better. And it
doesn't stop others mailing larger numbers.

But we do have to avoid the spam allegation. True, the concept is
different for post, and many on our lists may be assumed to have an
interest or even a duty to hear us.

What IMO we shouldn't so is set up a very public 'hit list' of names
we should be writing to, beyond possibly those who are directly
concerned with this legislation such as the Home secretary. Being
seen to be too organised, and organised in the wrong sort of way, can
be used against us.