Earthstepper
|
Dual identity?
Nov 06, 2003, 09:57
|
The concepts and aims are coming together nicely now. Bubbling up from the comments made is the issue of approach. What I mean is - will the group be about putting forward reasoned arguements, gaining effective publicity and being "respectable"? OR Will it be about taking confrontational action, protests , eco-warrior type stuff?
OR BOTH
Being "both" is what is really needed, but that is a large part of the problem we have of finding a suitable name which encapsulates our identity. So why not consider having TWO identities for one organisation and using whichever one is most appropriate?
For example: The Prehistoric Protection Society (PPS) sounds very sober and respectable. This could be our negotiating, persuading wing and would feature on notepaper etc
The Prehistoric Action Group (PAG) would be our banner waving, site squatting, slogan daubing action group.
Both names contain "Prehistoric" which has been a major concern of members and both would get picked up well on web searches. I would suggest seperate web sites too.
|
FourWinds
|
Re: Proposed Format, for discussion
Nov 06, 2003, 10:34
|
5. We should be Ireland as well as UK.
All for that , but! ...
You are then having to manage two legal systems and arguments used for the UK might not be valid in Ireland.
|
FourWinds
|
Both?
Nov 06, 2003, 10:35
|
|
Can't it be initially The Silbury Group *and* some others?
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Proposed Format, for discussion
Nov 06, 2003, 10:37
|
|
No but you'd be Irish Campaign Manager
|
Kozmik_Ken
|
Re: rockulous idea sirrah...
Nov 06, 2003, 12:00
|
"...but to make this succeed you need to reach the people who wouldn't normally do anything. You need to grab their attention..."
Yes true. I think campaigns where the general public need to get involved would work better on a local level. Where something they can actually care about is threatened.
"...and a hippy with a dog on a rope saying 'but this is our heritage man!' ain't gonna do that :-)"
Aww man, that was one of my logo ideas! ;)
What is needed really is a written constitution or a statement stating the purpose of the group. If the group is formed as non-profit-making organisation (a Trust or Charitable Company), there is a chance of recieving grants and public funding. Especially to help run the group... but that means lots of wanky paperwork for a few lucky folk.... who usually get pissed off with being the few who do all the work. Maybe better to do it as a loose collective perhaps?
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Dual identity?
Nov 06, 2003, 13:01
|
ES, I take you're point about the advantages of the word Prehistoric, but it also has unfortunate connotations in the public mind, especially if we're a bit radical. I'm still stinging from FW's mention of hippies with dogs on ropes which clearly signalled he'd been spying on me ;)
Reasoned arguments v Eco-warriors:
I definitely don't see us as a clone of the League Against Cruel Sports, on the grounds that I don't think any of us are that way inclined and extremists are usually counter-productive. But equally, and we have to have a consensus on this and perhaps write it into a blueprint, rather more "actively active" (!) and abrasive than might be expected of the Church of England Antiquarians Group. We could define it by agreeing a list of acceptable tactics. Eg. my Silbury notices would be acceptable I would hope but getting prosecuted for camping on the Avebury carpark wouldn't. For me, none of our tactics would be sufficiently unrespectable to necessitate two websites, i.e. the spectrum of radicalism wouldn't be too wide. Personally, I think the guiding factor ought to be that threats to sites are best countered by (a) educating public opinion and (b) giving adverse publicity to those in a position to rectify things. In a way those are the 2 functions you mentioned and for me they're pretty indivisible.
I think there are two types of situations we may face - the scenario BN talks of, where we need a long term local campaign against commercial interests and the short sharp campaign where we hope to shake EH et al out of their indolence simply by publicising the neglect. Again, those require the 2 different approaches but we can do it all from one base.
|
nigelswift
|
Let's settle the name today
Nov 06, 2003, 13:28
|
In the absence of Baza and a brainwave, can I suggest:
"Heritage Action"
It's short and snappy and runs off the tongue and it grows on you. We can specify Ancient Sites and UK & Ireland and Guardianship etc into the strapline.
|
nickbrand
|
Re: Let's settle the name today
Nov 06, 2003, 13:38
|
|
I'd go with that, though I've been lurking and enjoying the lists people have come up with. Heritage Action is short and to the point, non-country specific, and pretty much sums up what the organisation will have to become.
|
Moth
|
Re: Let's settle the name today
Nov 06, 2003, 13:58
|
Me too.
(Though I still prefer ANCIENT Heritage Action & like the acronym AHA. But as me & Kammer are the only ones who like it, I'll shaddap!)
love
Moth
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Let's settle the name today
Nov 06, 2003, 14:05
|
|
I've just realised, a letterhead saying Heritage Action, dropping onto a desk at English Heritage says it all, and we hardly need to add any words!
|
