All I was doing was trying to clarify, for my own sake as much as anyone else's, what the differences between Nigel's ideas and your ideas were. From what you say (esp in your post below), you seem to have picked up on the main points I was trying to get across.
I agree with just about everything you say, though I'd still have reservations about the phrase "The focus comes sharp when the 'when' is now and the 'as' is in your own back yard". Those of us that can't GUARANTEE our time and energy can't GUARANTEE that the focus can 'come sharp' when needed. But that doesn't mean we can't play a useful role when we can devote some time and energy, even if it's just by sharing skills etc.
As I kinda said, what I'm concerned about is that people will be scared off by feeling that others are relying on their devotion of time and energy that they really can commit to. If that limits the effectiveness of the group (or even means it's totally ineffective) so be it.
That brings me on to the other thing I need to comment on: "Tarmac and the like will soon see us as a big zero and rightly ignore anything we say." This may be so, but I'm afraid that if it's the best we can do, it's the best we can do.
It's not them we're trying to appeal to directly though is it? They're unlikely to take notice of any group that we could set up, no matter how well organised. Surely we're looking to 'stir' the public which will result on pressure on the authorities who will then deal with 'the Tarmac's? Only once this has happened once or twice would our group gather any influence of its own.
Glad we all seem to be discussing it again though. Action will follow, I'm sure.