nigelswift
|
Re: Here's my best shot...
Nov 05, 2003, 18:03
|
Sitewatch UK -
Guarding Ancient Sites through People Power
|
Earthstepper
|
Re: Here's my best shot...
Nov 05, 2003, 18:18
|
|
Brilliant and opened ended enough to be as embracing as you want it to be.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Getting Serious about Conservation
Nov 05, 2003, 18:25
|
Moth and ES, I claim no special clout in all this, and I suspect I'll be a bit part player if it gets going.
My instinct, for what it's worth, is that we should have an aim no more distinct than that
... we love "our sites",
... we deplore loss and damage through poor bureaucracy and commercial pressure
... and we want to make a difference through publicising causes in whatever reasonable and respectable way we can
Basically, that's how we all clearly feel here so it's got to be the right approach and we'll never need to change it and if Moth can find the words to summarise it, then great.
As for the details, I think unwritten constitutions work best so let's see what happens. If we need to grow then the need will show and we'll adapt as necessary.
Just my opinion though.
|
ocifant
|
Re: Getting Serious about Conservation
Nov 05, 2003, 19:02
|
Figurehead?
Would the new organisation need someone with a bit of 'clout' in the establishment to lend credence to the organisation?
Any ideas? JC for El Presidente?
|
Steve Gray
|
Re: Here's my best shot...
Nov 05, 2003, 19:34
|
Wow, I just caught up on this thread. Are you trying to beat the Stone Shifting tally?
Anyway, sorry to be negative, but "Sitewatch UK" sounds like a building site security firm.
Once you decide on a name I'd be happy to register a website for you.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Getting Serious about Conservation
Nov 05, 2003, 19:57
|
It would be a big ask, and an open ended risk to their reputation. It would mean we'd effectively need a corporate identity, editorial control, detailed policies and attitudes to apply to everything that got posted.
It's one way we could go, but I'd have thought a people power platform would be more practicable. Not anarchy, but certainly an open attitude with minimal control. OK, sometimes some of the campaigns we hosted would be defective, but that wouldn't discredit the whole platform, hopefully. Our authority would be that we allowed public concern to be heard, and how can the establishment knock "the public".
It's certainly one of the things we ought to make a choice about, as ES said.
|
Jane
|
Re: Here's my best shot...
Nov 05, 2003, 19:59
|
Doesn't grab me by the balls, nigelswift: sounds like a bunch of be-dreadlocked, unemployed, eco-warriors with big slavering dogs, who once worked for a construction site security company.
Soz!
;-)
J
x
|
BrigantesNation
|
Re: Getting Serious about Conservation
Nov 05, 2003, 20:01
|
|
Best get the organisation running, then someone can choose to buy in or not - otherwise you risk taking on a hidden agenda.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Here's my best shot...
Nov 05, 2003, 20:17
|
Blimey, so I've got to find a way to grab you by the balls?
I think I'll go and get a curry.
|
Earthstepper
|
Re: Here's my best shot...
Nov 05, 2003, 20:39
|
On second thoughts - the UK bit will be a problem for the Irish, Scots and Welsh nationalists as well as the Kernows. "Site" means something to us but not a lot to others - web sites, building sites, derelict sites. I just wonder how many signatures the Thornborough campaign would have got if they were still trying to find a cute name for themselves.
I do think that "------ Watch" is good though. Implies a watching brief and being ready for action when needed - kind of watchdog/guardian thing.
|
