1. The law of unintended consequences 2. Reading Evening Post
>Subject: RE: Full and half page costings: Reading evening post
>
>Hi Jon
>
>The cost for a mono full page into Tbe Reading Post : £2,759 and a half
>page £1,340.
>There other options we could depending on the nature of the advert also
>when you wanted it to run
>Kind regards
>Roz Cooper : 0118 9217734
>-----Original Message-----
Jon Fuller [mailto:jon_n_fuller@hotmail.com], Tue, 5 Sep 2006 15:49:18 +0100
>Sent: 05 September 2006 15:44
>To: BP Advertising
>Subject: Full and half page costings: Reading evening post
>
>To Judith Toner
>Reading Post
>
>
>Hi Judith,
>
>Please could you inform me how much it would cost to place a black & white
>text notice in the Reading Evening Post? I would like to consider the cost
>of a full & half page notice. This would be for one edition only.
>
>I gather Wednesday is your best day for coverage?
>
>Regards,
>
>
>
>Jon
>
>
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
>______________________________________________________________________
>
>
Teddy, 06 Sep 2006 01:50:23
Hi Jon,
It would be great to challenge Salter on his home patch in the RP like this, although we have to be careful on two fronts.
1. This kind of money is substantial, as far as Backlash goes, and the battle won't be fought (or won) on the streets of Reading alone. Given the paper's track record of supporting the JLT campaign, I'd be surprised if any huge discounts would be headed our way. Sponsors may have to be sought...
2. We musn't offend our target audience; there is a groundbase of support form Mrs L in the Reading area and some sensitivity is needed. As well as exposing the untruths and opportunism of Salter, we also need to say what Backlash stands for and explain why what Salter and the RP are campaigning for is wrong.
T.
*** This message has been edited by Teddy on 06 Sep 2006 01:50:33 ***
rovacs, 06 Sep 2006 13:45:00
It seems Salter has carte blanche to go around saying things like Coaker did-that the material is already illegal and this just grabs another wrong 'un currently escaping the net on a technicality. Moves are already underway to clobber and expose Coaker on this and his falsehood publicly over the Consultation. Now can't Salter be halted in mid burble by someone telling him to his face-hopefully with cameras rolling,microphones on and reporters about-he is talking rubbish about the law has been repeating it continiually-whether he is doing it deliberately or thru ignorance I don't know. Being exposed as a serial falsifier will do him no good and may help to see a slimy careerist start being more circumspect. Now I don't know about this but-like Coaker-there may be grounds for Salter to have Parliamentary standards thrown at him as well for being an mp campaigning for something while doing it by misrepresenting the law.
He should also be challenged to produce the evidence for his allegations
I think every non sexually violent weapon at hand needs to be used against these creepy narcs who are turning this country into a nation Adolf might not even have liked much.
Jon,
> It would be great to challenge Salter on his home patch in the RP like this, although we have to be careful on two fronts.
> 1. This kind of money is substantial, as far as Backlash goes, and the battle won't be fought (or won) on the streets of Reading alone. Given the paper's track record of supporting the JLT campaign, I'd be surprised if any huge discounts would be headed our way. Sponsors may have to be sought...
> 2. We musn't offend our target audience; there is a groundbase of support form Mrs L in the Reading area and some sensitivity is needed. As well as exposing the untruths and opportunism of Salter, we also need to say what Backlash stands for and explain why what Salter and the RP are campaigning for is wrong.
> T.
demolitionred, 06 Sep 2006 15:01:20
that is nearly all our budget at the mo...I'd have thoughta broadsheet may be better ..
I'm going to post your thoughts on other discussion bords and see what peopel think about the ad.
Author wrote:
> 1. The law of unintended consequences
> One inescapable law of the universe is that of the unintended consequence.
> One does something spontaneously, without proper consideration, and all hell
> can break loose.
> Salter may, at one point, have thought he was doing the right thing in
> supporting his constituent. He now demonstrates a maliciousness of heart
> akin to that of the racists and homophobes.
> I don't believe it is possible to reason with these people, so we ought now
> to make this a bruising experience. If this whole episode causes the sex
> fascists pain they will think again before gunning for the next minority
> group.
> I have therefore today purchased 10,000 leaflets for distribution in
> Reading. I mentioned this idea to DR some months ago but I think she felt
> that such a response was unwarranted at this point. My view is that time has
> now come.
> I have made overtures to an environmental campaign group offering to arrange
> the distribution of leaflets within Reading. These are incredibly hard
> hitting and highly critical of Labour’s policies relating to Climate Change
> – they urge people to pledge never to support Labour again. The leaflet
> cites the hard science, mixed with emotive rhetoric. I particularly liked
> this: -
> “New Labour: A New level of human depravity”.
> The leaflet continually refers to the Government’s miserable failures with
> regard to Climate Change and contrasts this with the scientific evidence –
> BILLIONS of lives to be lost (according to the UN, WHO, IPCC, Christian Aid,
> Greenpeace et al.).
> The leaflets will go out during the w/c 18/9.
> I’ll leave it until 30/9 to explain to him why I have done this. I won’t
> undermine the campaign group’s validity – it is scientifically sound - but
> I’ll make damn sure he knows I paid for this because I was incensed with his
> behaviour.
> 2. Reading Evening Post
> I wondered about the wisdom of funding a message to all in Reading. This is
> what it costs (see below). (Bet I can negotiate this down a little.) Do
> people feel a message directly to all in Reading might help? I wonder
> whether we ought to explain why we are so vehemently opposed to Salter's
> proposals (taking the opportunity to mention Croaker's lies) ?
> Regards.
m: "BP Advertising"
, 06 Sep 2006 15:01:20
> >Subject: RE: Full and half page costings: Reading evening post
> >
> >Hi Jon
> >
> >The cost for a mono full page into Tbe Reading Post : £2,759 and a half
> >page £1,340.
> >There other options we could depending on the nature of the advert also
> >when you wanted it to run
> >Kind regards
> >Roz Cooper : 0118 9217734
> >-----Original Message-----
m: Jon Fuller [mailto:jon_n_fuller@hotmail.com], e: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 15:49:18 +0100
> >Sent: 05 September 2006 15:44
> >To: BP Advertising
> >Subject: Full and half page costings: Reading evening post
> >
> >To Judith Toner
> >Reading Post
> >
> >
> >Hi Judith,
> >
> >Please could you inform me how much it would cost to place a black & white
> >text notice in the Reading Evening Post? I would like to consider the cost
> >of a full & half page notice. This would be for one edition only.
> >
> >I gather Wednesday is your best day for coverage?
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >
> >
> >Jon
> >
> >
> >
> >______________________________________________________________________
> >This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> >For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
> >______________________________________________________________________
> >
> >
demolitionred, 06 Sep 2006 15:03:22
Author wrote:
> He should also be challenged to produce the evidence for his allegations
I agree...
demolitionred, 06 Sep 2006 15:04:50
Author wrote:> 2. We musn't offend our target audience; there is a groundbase of support form Mrs L in the Reading area and some sensitivity is needed. As well as exposing the untruths and opportunism of Salter, we also need to say what Backlash stands for and explain why what Salter and the RP are campaigning for is wrong.
> T.
hear, hear
Paul C. Dickie, 10 Sep 2006 14:37:01
In message , Jon Fuller
wrote:
>1. The law of unintended consequences
>
>One inescapable law of the universe is that of the unintended consequence.
>One does something spontaneously, without proper consideration, and all hell
>can break loose.
>
>Salter may, at one point, have thought he was doing the right thing in
>supporting his constituent. He now demonstrates a maliciousness of heart
>akin to that of the racists and homophobes.
As some aspects of BDSM may be involved (to a greater or lesser extent)
in some forms of homosexualism, the antics of Coaker and Salter may
indeed be a form of indirect discrimination against homosexualists.
Perhaps someone like Peter Tatchell could be persuaded to act against
those two idiots?
>I don't believe it is possible to reason with these people, so we ought now
>to make this a bruising experience. If this whole episode causes the sex
>fascists pain they will think again before gunning for the next minority
>group.
I would be inclined to doubt that, for one would first have to show that
they are actually able to think logically. As there is an abundance of
evidence to show that Coutts was obsessed with asphyxia long before he
ever got an Internet connection, one might assume that neither Coaker
nor Salter is able to think logically, or else that they *are* able but
simply do not care about the real facts. Perhaps they are both twice-
born God-botherers and enjoy a personal hot-line to the Almighty?
Or perhaps they're both quite mad?
--
< Paul >
Mirius, 11 Sep 2006 21:04:29
I've seen this sort of thing a numner of times now. As a christian who is
extremely opposed to the new laws I do find this offensive. If I find that
then I'm sure that those christians who might support us, will also if they
come across it, as they surely will if they research. We've got enough
enemies without creating internal rifts just because you want to mock those
who do beleive.
----- Original Message -----
"Paul C. Dickie"
, 11 Sep 2006 21:04:29
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 7:51 PM
Teddy, 11 Sep 2006 22:15:02
Hi Mirius,
It is certainly the case that the support of "religious groups" was one excuse being used by the Home Office for it's recent actions. I can understand why some of the people in the forum might be resentful of this situation. However, I would agree that remarks likely to cause personal offence in this way aren't so helpful...
T.
Author wrote:
> I've seen this sort of thing a numner of times now. As a christian who is
> extremely opposed to the new laws I do find this offensive. If I find that
> then I'm sure that those christians who might support us, will also if they
> come across it, as they surely will if they research. We've got enough
> enemies without creating internal rifts just because you want to mock those
> who do beleive.
> ----- Original Message -----
: "Paul C. Dickie"
, 11 Sep 2006 22:15:02
> Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 7:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [backlash] 1. The law of unintended consequences 2. Reading
> Evening Post
> Perhaps they are both twice-
> > born God-botherers and enjoy a personal hot-line to the Almighty?
> >
> ___________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Teddy, 11 Sep 2006 22:15:02
Hi Mirius,
It is certainly the case that the support of "religious groups" was one excuse being used by the Home Office for it's recent actions. I can understand why some of the people in the forum might be resentful of this situation. However, I would agree that remarks likely to cause personal offence in this way aren't so helpful...
T.
Author wrote:
> I've seen this sort of thing a numner of times now. As a christian who is
> extremely opposed to the new laws I do find this offensive. If I find that
> then I'm sure that those christians who might support us, will also if they
> come across it, as they surely will if they research. We've got enough
> enemies without creating internal rifts just because you want to mock those
> who do beleive.
> ----- Original Message -----
: "Paul C. Dickie"
, 11 Sep 2006 22:15:02
> Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 7:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [backlash] 1. The law of unintended consequences 2. Reading
> Evening Post
> Perhaps they are both twice-
> > born God-botherers and enjoy a personal hot-line to the Almighty?
> >
> ___________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
zak, 13 Sep 2006 15:32:56
If one is engaged in a campagin to defend freedom of expression, it doesn't
really sit very well to start coming up with reasons why some people have a
right not to be offended. An individual's beliefs or opinions are that
individual's business, but don't confer any special privileges.
Original Message:
-----------------
David Butcher david@davidbutcher.org, 13 Sep 2006 15:32:56
rovacs, 13 Sep 2006 17:31:59
The point is this proposed law is based upon "opinion", not harm. It interferes with personal matters on the basis of the disapproval of some of the habits-private habits-of others. And it interferes in a way never before sanctioned here. By jailing "offenders". This is what makes it totalitarian and utterly abusive of human rights and should never be allowed as a law in this country. Unfortunately a Government of smug power drunk prigs will have to be fought to get rid of it. Then they can be got rid of too because of this sort of wickedness.
Author wrote:
> If one is engaged in a campagin to defend freedom of expression, it doesn't
> really sit very well to start coming up with reasons why some people have a
> right not to be offended. An individual's beliefs or opinions are that
> individual's business, but don't confer any special privileges.
> Original Message:
> -----------------
: David Butcher david@davidbutcher.org, 13 Sep 2006 17:31:59
> Subject: Re: [backlash] 1. The law of unintended consequences 2. Reading
> Evening Post
> I've seen this sort of thing a numner of times now. As a christian who is
> extremely opposed to the new laws I do find this offensive. If I find that
> then I'm sure that those christians who might support us, will also if they
> come across it, as they surely will if they research. We've got enough
> enemies without creating internal rifts just because you want to mock those
> who do beleive.
> ----- Original Message -----
: "Paul C. Dickie"
, : Mon, 11 Sep 2006 20:55:23 +0100
> Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 7:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [backlash] 1. The law of unintended consequences 2. Reading
> Evening Post
> Perhaps they are both twice-
> > born God-botherers and enjoy a personal hot-line to the Almighty?
> >
> ___________________________________________________________
> 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%3D5787
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .
Mirius, 17 Sep 2006 09:48:07
The right to freedom of expression comes with the matching obligation to
respect others. If you don't respect others, how can you expect them to
respect you?
----- Original Message -----
, 17 Sep 2006 09:48:07
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 9:49 AM
Mirius, 22 Sep 2006 02:01:44
My point exactly I think
>
> How does that "respect" us and our rights?
>
> 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%3D5876
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com