[Free-sklyarov-uk] Corrupt CD's - Time for another protest/leafleting session?

[Edward Welbourne]

Eddy:
> I must confess I'd tend towards sending the money FIRP's way and
> remaining anarchic and disorganised.
Jim:
> Yes, anarchic and disorganized sounds by far the best.
> Unfortunately, when the press are asking for comments, they're
> expecting you to say the same thing every time, i.e. to keep a
> consistent "line".
Alistair:
> I like anarchic too, but having some form of formal legal structure is 
> important if we're to accept donations.
>
> And I really feel that having a someone who deals with the press is
> important, journalists are a conservative bunch.
Jason:
> Yes as once you accept peoples' money you need to be able to
> properly account for it. Anarchies are not too good at that.

which is why I said to send the money FIPR's way (sorry about the
earlier mis-spelling !).

We can trust FIPR to be the charity that `simply dishes out the facts'
which happen to explain our case; they have the bureaucratic
infrastructure already for keeping accounts and, hence, being able to
handle money, hire Julian, etc.  It might indeed happen that a lot of
the charity's donors support CDR and some of its staff, in their own
time, are active in CDR (and might sometimes appear in some official
capacity such as `FIPR observer').  It would only be sensible for FIPR
to use a staff member familiar with CDR to deliver information
explaining its protests in terms journalists will know how to report.

Folk we trust at FIPR are going to be the contacts the press learn to
go and talk to when they want an explanation of what we're doing.  As
for ourselves, we'll each be telling the story as we see it, to
whoever it falls to each of us to talk to, whether press or the
general public.  The public'll get, not just repetition of the
message, but that variety of perspectives on it which will wake folk
faster from `scarcely notice the first time, only really pay attention
after a few'.  They, and the press, will be getting leaflets from a
motley rabble, with URLs leading them to CDR and FIPR websites; most
of the press will report matters in terms of our leaflets and any
press release they might get from FIPR, even if it's one of us that
first talked them into taking an interest.

Without a CDR figurehead, the worst evil an adversarial reporter can
do us is make a fool of some random protesting individual.  If plenty
of folk - and enough other reporters - have heard a story based on the
facts in our leaflets, websites, press releases, etc., then more folk
will see the case we're making than the straw man's defeat.
Meanwhile, the worst a malicious prosecutor can do is hassle CDR
activists as individuals (unless somehow they oblige us to shut down a
mailing list and - oh gosh, how easy this is on the internet - find
somewhere else to plot); leaving the rest to operate as we see fit,
without exposing FIPR - hence the salaries of those we trust to give
the press a consistent story we'll accept is faithful to the facts -
to litigious intimidation.

Take the notion `outsource your management' and turn it inside out.

	Eddy.
--
I believe in getting into hot water; it keeps you clean.
				    -- G. K. Chesterton.