Your analogy with the Valley Party and this petition would be correct if the Valley Party had fielded candidates in the Timbuktu regional elections to try and put pressure on Greenwich Council.
it may be to capture the EU as a single market for football and prevent ownership of multiple clubs as an experiment in ownership structure and closed book transfer dealings.
So, do you think this is a good idea?
If so, do you think any such EU-wide change has a snowball in hell's chance of happening when a huge chunk of the Segunda División B in Spain is made up of teams such as Real Madrid and Barcelona B? And then there's FC Bayern München II playing in the third tier of German football along with a number of other reserve sides?
Do I think raising the profile of the issue by any means possible is a good idea, you bet I do.
Chances of success at changing the FA's view of European legislation as it applies in the UK are small but this petition is aimed at raising profile of CAFC, one of many means to an end. Are you proposing total inaction?? You are perfectly entitled to do so - sit back take a sip of coffee and reminisce about the days when we had a real manager who could motivate poor squad to greater things and decide which players they would need to bring in come January to maintain the league position - do nothing.
The chances of success of the petition as a petition are small and irrelevant, If however you measure the success of the petition as a means to garnering support and awareness of the plight of our club and providing a unified voice of discontent from our supporter then I bet more people have signed it than will turn up at the meeting of Bromley tonight by a factor of 10.
Luzon only went on Saturday! There's no need to rush something out within days just to "raise awareness". Surely it's far better to spend a bit of time co-ordinating a proper, unified response that has clear aims and a higher chance of traction/success then individuals throwing out campaigns on the spur of the moment.
What's better - 10 campaigns with mixed aims that don't represent the wider fanbase, each supported by 800 people, or one focussed campaign with a clear brief and unified message supported by 8,000? Clearly the latter will draw the most attention and be harder to ignore?
I guess you would agree that a petition works best when it gets a really big support?
So if only the author of the petition had just talked to some of the other active Charlton fans. If only he had waited just to attend either the Trust meeting or Bromley Addicks, tonight. If he would have attended the Trust meeting we could have showed him the work that is already being done by a lot of smart and committed fans around the country on the wider issues you are rightly concerned about. I refer to the Football Supporters Federation, and Supporters Direct (sorry can't link to their sites on this machine) . Surely you see that if you want to address the Governance of the game, it's best done at national level? Isn't it hopelessly arrogant to assume that only Charlton fans have spotted the issue, and that Charlton fans alone can lead the fight against it. Correction, one Charlton fan.
If you want to talk to a real expert on the issues you are concerned about, come along to hear Owen Gibson of the Guardian at the Trust AGM this evening
What a pompous response. The fact is that the person who started this did so with the best of intentions and you try to belittle him/her by suggesting that they should wait until the rest of us get our acts in gear!!
To suggest arrogance is a real dose of pot and kettle. Every protest starts small and local the steps from Tolpuddle to the match girls and the ultimately the TUC is a simple example. The first world war was ignited by one man in Serbia. I am happy for others to support our effort and us theirs but do not belittle the efforts of others it demeans you
Initiatives like this should be supported alongside other forms of protest if the end game is the same. You would wait until the armoured column had flattened your house before forming a committee to deliver a response. Sorry - protest doesn't work like that.
A journo is not a real expert they are commentators, good at what they do but not an expert since they spend their lives seeking the opinions of people who really know what they are doing.
Pomposity: The thrust of Prague's point was that someone else, Owen Gibson, knows something that we may not and that we may learn from his experience. Recognition that others may know more than us isn't pomposity, it is humility. Thinking that others have nothing to offer would be pomposity.
Belittling: I don't think that anyone is trying to belittle the author of the petition. As far as I can see any criticism has been levelled at the petition rather than the person. I think almost everyone here concurs that they are unhappy with the experiment and would like it to stop. The question is, how best to go about it. I think it's praiseworthy that the person concerned has been proactive, but I can't help but think they've jumped the gun and gone off in the wrong direction. They were clearly hoping to lead on something, but a central tenet of leadership is listening - with that in mind I hope they have listened to the views of those who feel that they can't join in on this particular activity.
Tolpuddle: The Tolpuddle Martyrs are actually a very good example of a movement that was successful because they discussed what to do rather than jumping on the first idea that was floated. Take a look at the timescales: On the 24th February 1834 the martyrs were arrested and on the 18th March 1834 sentenced to deportation at Dorchester assizes. The movement didn't demonstrate immediately, instead calling a meeting for the 24th March 1834. That meeting was attended by 10,000 people and it was here that it was agreed to hold a demonstration. A demonstration that wouldn't take place until almost a month later on 21st April 1834. That demonstration attended by 100,000 people marked the start of the petitioning stage and they organised these on an national basis and gathered 800,000 signatures. It was these signatures that led the Home Secretary to give conditional pardons, but it wasn't until another year of campaigning that the government capitulated and granted unconditional pardons. Taking their time, getting their campaign right and taking the people with them were essential parts of the Tolpuddle Martyrs campaign. They did not jump to the tune of the first person to shout.
Match Girls: The match girls situation is somewhat different. There was no workers organisation at Bryant and May, but at the time of the strike people were at breaking point; they were working 14 hour days in conditions that made them ill and led to premature deaths. When Annie Besant was sacked they felt that they had to take action. 1,400 went on strike from day one. It is hard to imagine the desperation that they would have felt to take such action. The big lesson of The Match Girls Strike is not that one individual can lead, it is that you can't bottle up resentment indefinitely - at some point people will take no more. Crucially though, their action took place together whilst they were at work. Nobody came up with a form of words that they expected others to follow without debate. They discussed what they were doing collectively.
Franz Ferinand: The assassination of the archduke may have been the trigger, but the war wasn't down to that. It was aggressive imperialism that caused the war. The war that would have happened sooner or later with or without Franz's demise.
it may be to capture the EU as a single market for football and prevent ownership of multiple clubs as an experiment in ownership structure and closed book transfer dealings.
So, do you think this is a good idea?
If so, do you think any such EU-wide change has a snowball in hell's chance of happening when a huge chunk of the Segunda División B in Spain is made up of teams such as Real Madrid and Barcelona B? And then there's FC Bayern München II playing in the third tier of German football along with a number of other reserve sides?
Do I think raising the profile of the issue by any means possible is a good idea, you bet I do.
"The issue" though. What is "the issue"? I have no idea from that petition of what "the issue" is.
If it's multi-ownership of clubs you and the author of the petition are against you need to say so. Otherwise what has it got to do with the Owners and Directors Test? Nothing whatsoever. If it is just multi-ownership, then everyone can decide whether they want the likes of FC Barcelona B featuring in the Spanish league. If the answer is no then that's at least clear. If the answer is it's okay for the Germans and Spanish but we don't want that sort of behaviour here, then all the petition does is marginally raise the profile of a fatally flawed concept.
If "the issue" is different: if it's how RD is screwing with our club, (despite spending £mns) that is all to do with his competence (or lack of) and the competence of the individuals he employs. That is a completely different kettle of fish to which the aforementioned test has no relevance whatsoever.
The petition does not raise awareness, it just confuses the hell out of everyone.
Clarity is key. The petition sucks, even setting aside all the inaccuracies.
This is it:
"The Fit and Proper Person Petition is a lobby group with the expressed aims of demanding:
1) An urgent FA investigation into the management of Charlton Athletic Football Club
2) An FA review of the Fit and Proper Person regulation
We, both Charlton Athletic fans and football supporters generally, have been undermined for too long; we request urgent FA and Football League investigation into the ongoing mismanagement of English clubs.
It is only a matter of time before things turn nasty; supporter boycotts and protests are the last thing anyone wants but as the Football authorities turn an apparent blind eye to the dismantling of football clubs across the divisions their likelihood increases – Only the timely oversight of the game’s governing bodies in England can prevent further disharmony and acrimony from ruining the sport for good."
So let's go through it.
It says the Fit & Proper person petition is a lobby group. How can a petition be a lobby group? Is it really a lobby group? Who belongs, who runs it? We don't know. I can't find any links on Google.
Then, two aims are cited. The first is for an investigation by the FA into the management of CAFC. Is that the management as individuals or the management as a task? Why? Upon what grounds? After all, every year, 13% of the 92 league clubs are relegated. More often than not this is because of the utter incompetence of someone. I'm sure every one of the supporters of those 12 teams each year wish an investigation could be carried out into how their team was run. IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN! Even if it did what do you expect the FA could do about it? The FA is not the North Korean Government. It cannot manipulate day-to-day administrative matters for every single club.
The second aim is for a review of a regulation. never mind what it's called for the moment or whose regulation it is. What's wrong with it? What do you want to change? What are the terms of reference for the reviewers? We don't know.
Then in the text there's a further, oh by the way, we are really asking for a football-wide enquiry rather than what we said in the bullet points. Is that as well or instead of? And then a further "ruining the sport" bombshell is lobbed in. So, there's more than two aims then! But in what way are football clubs "being dismantled across the divisions"? It's not because a very few of them are within the multi-ownership category is it? Watford are doing reasonably well out of it aren't they? So what's the issue? We don't know, we haven't been told, it's just a few words blended into a meaningless sentence.
There is no focus, no punchy requested output, just words strung together, until the reader is thoroughly confused as to what is being asked, let alone whether they have an ambit to act.
It's like cooking something with every ingredient you find in your cupboards and then wondering why it tastes crap.
Setting aside my allegiance to Charlton and my built-in bias, is there any reason, really, why floundering football clubs should not be allowed to just fail and die? It happens all the time in every other industry. People back the wrong person or product and go out of business if they can't find someone else to buy them. You can't realistically expect the governing bodies of English football to take an alternative view can you?
I've just had another look at the petition, and been reading some of the 750 people explaining why they signed the petition. I found it quite interesting. I doubt whether Kish expects his petition to have a magical effect of bringing about an instant change, so the description of him as "hopelessly arrogant" is aimed at the wrong target. We all seem to agree that Roland is a fit and proper person by the FA rules (F&P) yet we hate the way he is running our club. I just cannot see the problem which many of you have with a petition which suggests looking at the F&P criteria, since by my own definition Roland is not F&P. Is he F&P by your definition?
I've just had another look at the petition, and been reading some of the 750 people explaining why they signed the petition. I found it quite interesting. I doubt whether Kish expects his petition to have a magical effect of bringing about an instant change, so the description of him as "hopelessly arrogant" is aimed at the wrong target. We all seem to agree that Roland is a fit and proper person by the FA rules (F&P) yet we hate the way he is running our club. I just cannot see the problem which many of you have with a petition which suggests looking at the F&P criteria, since by my own definition Roland is not F&P. Is he F&P by your definition?
I think Dr Kish has said it wasn't him who started it
it may be to capture the EU as a single market for football and prevent ownership of multiple clubs as an experiment in ownership structure and closed book transfer dealings.
So, do you think this is a good idea?
If so, do you think any such EU-wide change has a snowball in hell's chance of happening when a huge chunk of the Segunda División B in Spain is made up of teams such as Real Madrid and Barcelona B? And then there's FC Bayern München II playing in the third tier of German football along with a number of other reserve sides?
Do I think raising the profile of the issue by any means possible is a good idea, you bet I do.
"The issue" though. What is "the issue"? I have no idea from that petition of what "the issue" is.
If it's multi-ownership of clubs you and the author of the petition are against you need to say so. Otherwise what has it got to do with the Owners and Directors Test? Nothing whatsoever. If it is just multi-ownership, then everyone can decide whether they want the likes of FC Barcelona B featuring in the Spanish league. If the answer is no then that's at least clear. If the answer is it's okay for the Germans and Spanish but we don't want that sort of behaviour here, then all the petition does is marginally raise the profile of a fatally flawed concept.
If "the issue" is different: if it's how RD is screwing with our club, (despite spending £mns) that is all to do with his competence (or lack of) and the competence of the individuals he employs. That is a completely different kettle of fish to which the aforementioned test has no relevance whatsoever.
The petition does not raise awareness, it just confuses the hell out of everyone.
Clarity is key. The petition sucks, even setting aside all the inaccuracies.
This is it:
"The Fit and Proper Person Petition is a lobby group with the expressed aims of demanding:
1) An urgent FA investigation into the management of Charlton Athletic Football Club
2) An FA review of the Fit and Proper Person regulation
We, both Charlton Athletic fans and football supporters generally, have been undermined for too long; we request urgent FA and Football League investigation into the ongoing mismanagement of English clubs.
It is only a matter of time before things turn nasty; supporter boycotts and protests are the last thing anyone wants but as the Football authorities turn an apparent blind eye to the dismantling of football clubs across the divisions their likelihood increases – Only the timely oversight of the game’s governing bodies in England can prevent further disharmony and acrimony from ruining the sport for good."
So let's go through it.
It says the Fit & Proper person petition is a lobby group. How can a petition be a lobby group? Is it really a lobby group? Who belongs, who runs it? We don't know. I can't find any links on Google.
Then, two aims are cited. The first is for an investigation by the FA into the management of CAFC. Is that the management as individuals or the management as a task? Why? Upon what grounds? After all, every year, 13% of the 92 league clubs are relegated. More often than not this is because of the utter incompetence of someone. I'm sure every one of the supporters of those 12 teams each year wish an investigation could be carried out into how their team was run. IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN! Even if it did what do you expect the FA could do about it? The FA is not the North Korean Government. It cannot manipulate day-to-day administrative matters for every single club.
The second aim is for a review of a regulation. never mind what it's called for the moment or whose regulation it is. What's wrong with it? What do you want to change? What are the terms of reference for the reviewers? We don't know.
Then in the text there's a further, oh by the way, we are really asking for a football-wide enquiry rather than what we said in the bullet points. Is that as well or instead of? And then a further "ruining the sport" bombshell is lobbed in. So, there's more than two aims then! But in what way are football clubs "being dismantled across the divisions"? It's not because a very few of them are within the multi-ownership category is it? Watford are doing reasonably well out of it aren't they? So what's the issue? We don't know, we haven't been told, it's just a few words blended into a meaningless sentence.
There is no focus, no punchy requested output, just words strung together, until the reader is thoroughly confused as to what is being asked, let alone whether they have an ambit to act.
It's like cooking something with every ingredient you find in your cupboards and then wondering why it tastes crap.
Setting aside my allegiance to Charlton and my built-in bias, is there any reason, really, why floundering football clubs should not be allowed to just fail and die? It happens all the time in every other industry. People back the wrong person or product and go out of business if they can't find someone else to buy them. You can't realistically expect the governing bodies of English football to take an alternative view can you?
Please feel free not to support the petition and stop wasting your life in micro-analysing something that is patently clear to a lot of people. Me - I'm going to stop hitting my head against this particular brick wall. I have realised it is to thick for my concrete noggin to deal with. Roger and out.
The petition was started by a concerned Charlton fan on Not606. Sign it or don't sign it, it is your choice. But some of the arrogance and condescending attitude by a certain poster on here is getting up my nose. The expression, ins and outs of a donkey's arsehole spring to mind. Why certain people have to dissect everything with a scalpel is beyond me.
I've been following this off and on, and as a neutral Charlton fan (I post here and NOT 606, and don't belong to any organised groups) my personal view is that some of the responses are way OTT: Prague Addick come top of the pile, and the responses on here that I've read on here suggest to me he does'nt like the petition as it deflects attention away from CAST, and their own agenda. I can think of nothing less likely to induce me to join the trust than this. I don't know any of those involved, I've read posts villifying and gloryfying them, but this incident puts me solidly among those who see them as a group set up for their own self aggrandisement. The point that we should be united seems to been united 'behind' the trust, si I'll take the other option to keep my fiver and keep away until the top echelon move over and yet someone younger take charge.
PA is correct that the well thought out, planned approach is most likely to get the best results - the OS campaign has shown (him) that. However, sometimes, the not thought out at all, off the cuff action can work just as well.
I've been following this off and on, and as a neutral Charlton fan (I post here and NOT 606, and don't belong to any organised groups) my personal view is that some of the responses are way OTT: Prague Addick come top of the pile, and the responses on here that I've read on here suggest to me he does'nt like the petition as it deflects attention away from CAST, and their own agenda. I can think of nothing less likely to induce me to join the trust than this. I don't know any of those involved, I've read posts villifying and gloryfying them, but this incident puts me solidly among those who see them as a group set up for their own self aggrandisement. The point that we should be united seems to been united 'behind' the trust, si I'll take the other option to keep my fiver and keep away until the top echelon move over and yet someone younger take charge.
Sorry that I come top of the pile in your eyes, since I was certainly not the first to comment on the potential failings of the petition, and in fact I did a quick tot up and 80% of those commenting were pointing out the drawbacks and potential negatives. Still if that is the impression I've created in your mind, I need to try and address that.
Would you like to expand here on what exactly pissed you off so much about my comments, and I will try and answer them. It would be helpful to understand what made you differentiate mine from other equally critical posts. Was it simply my position in the Trust, or something else?
Okay Prague, just ploughed back through the posts, which maybe I should have done this morning. I will remove you from the top of the pile, as the person who called it Buffoonery eally gets the award for putting down a fellow supporter who has managed to raise awareness of what is going on at the Valley. The post I objected to of yours, while I fully agree you can post what you like, is that the guy who started it should have atended meetings with the trust, met the guy from the Guardian etc etc. I read (to my point of view) as if he went off half cocked, whereas I think in the end the points he raises are valid, and anyway, having got us on SSN, he deserves some considerable thanks. Plus no one on SSN gave it half the post mortem it has recieved on here. If I read as attacking you personally, sorry, I was fairly wound up by the general tone of much of the criticism on here. I did note that the general view was against it, though it's mostly the same bunch of posters argueing each way, but I believe that the petition now has over 800 signatures, so maybe some of those who criticised it should accept it has done us very well indeed.
Okay Prague, just ploughed back through the posts, which maybe I should have done this morning. I will remove you from the top of the pile, as the person who called it Buffoonery eally gets the award for putting down a fellow supporter who has managed to raise awareness of what is going on at the Valley. The post I objected to of yours, while I fully agree you can post what you like, is that the guy who started it should have atended meetings with the trust, met the guy from the Guardian etc etc. I read (to my point of view) as if he went off half cocked, whereas I think in the end the points he raises are valid, and anyway, having got us on SSN, he deserves some considerable thanks. Plus no one on SSN gave it half the post mortem it has recieved on here. If I read as attacking you personally, sorry, I was fairly wound up by the general tone of much of the criticism on here. I did note that the general view was against it, though it's mostly the same bunch of posters argueing each way, but I believe that the petition now has over 800 signatures, so maybe some of those who criticised it should accept it has done us very well indeed.
Well I went back too and realized that I should not have used the term "hopelessly arrogant" . And I was frustrated too by that time, not with the petition author but the guy on here who was having a go at all the critics, but without apparently understanding what the criticisms were.
Regarding talking to the Trust and others beforehand, I just wanted to say that had he done so, we might at least have been able to help make it stronger, by for instance pointing out who administers the relevant fit and proper person test. We've learnt a lot from teaming up with other Trusts over the OS. for example petitions. Actually Steve Clarke and I were not much keen on the OS Petition. It was experienced people from other Trusts and Supporters Direct who persuaded us, and helped us make the petition sharp and effective. Without them it would not have happened.
Anyway, sorry I pissed you off. My bad choice of language. Back to thee match thread.!
This petition is a genuine way to express dissatisfaction with the way our owner is alienating many long-standing fans by the way he is running the club. I don't get the hostility towards it. It doesn't impinge on anyone else's protest.
No hostility that I can see. It's just pointless, unless Kish suspects something that no one else knows.
Who is this "Kish" by the way? Is it the guy who runs the "Dr Kish" website? Because I visited that site and there is no word of the petition there, which itself seems odd (if it is the same person).
@Stig makes a good point about the Olympic petition. Although it has my name on it, in fact it was the collective work of the group which had been formed by then, comprising people from different Trusts, including a professional journalist (vital because of the word limit on petitions on that site) and a couple of highly experienced political campaigners. When the petition launched we had co-ordinated publicity targeting the fans of clubs across London, ready to go, bang. That's why it took off at a speed that frankly astounded us.
That's the sort of collaborative behaviour I hope we can muster if we need to go down the campaigning route.
Nothing to do with Doctor Kish, Prague. I believe 'Kish' is a poster on the Not606 site.
This petition is a genuine way to express dissatisfaction with the way our owner is alienating many long-standing fans by the way he is running the club. I don't get the hostility towards it. It doesn't impinge on anyone else's protest.
No hostility that I can see. It's just pointless, unless Kish suspects something that no one else knows.
Who is this "Kish" by the way? Is it the guy who runs the "Dr Kish" website? Because I visited that site and there is no word of the petition there, which itself seems odd (if it is the same person).
@Stig makes a good point about the Olympic petition. Although it has my name on it, in fact it was the collective work of the group which had been formed by then, comprising people from different Trusts, including a professional journalist (vital because of the word limit on petitions on that site) and a couple of highly experienced political campaigners. When the petition launched we had co-ordinated publicity targeting the fans of clubs across London, ready to go, bang. That's why it took off at a speed that frankly astounded us.
That's the sort of collaborative behaviour I hope we can muster if we need to go down the campaigning route.
Nothing to do with Doctor Kish, Prague. I believe 'Kish' is a poster on the Not606 site.
Yes, that's become clear in the last couple of days. I did think it was odd there was nothing on the Dr Kish site about it.
Prague "Well I went back too and realized that I should not have used the term "hopelessly arrogant" . And I was frustrated too by that time, not with the petition author but the guy on here who was having a go at all the critics, but without apparently understanding what the criticisms were."
Prague, I fully understood what the criticisms were and how hopelessly they were attempting to belittle somebody in Kish who had raised a petition which had got more than 800 supporters. The criticisms as I tried to point out to you were totally irrelevant to the success of the petition, which was to get the issue aired. It did. Your criticisms whilst technically correct may have given you the pyrrhic victory you so craved but to Kish the spoils.
Now lets get on with trying to raise the issue of the club's problems rather than go for self aggrandisement.
Prague "Well I went back too and realized that I should not have used the term "hopelessly arrogant" . And I was frustrated too by that time, not with the petition author but the guy on here who was having a go at all the critics, but without apparently understanding what the criticisms were."
Prague, I fully understood what the criticisms were and how hopelessly they were attempting to belittle somebody in Kish who had raised a petition which had got more than 800 supporters. The criticisms as I tried to point out to you were totally irrelevant to the success of the petition, which was to get the issue aired. It did. Your criticisms whilst technically correct may have given you the pyrrhic victory you so craved but to Kish the spoils.
Now lets get on with trying to raise the issue of the club's problems rather than go for self aggrandisement.
You seem to want to make this discussion a battle of tribes within the Charlton fanbase. It isn't. At least, not for me, or anyone else who raised the concerns about the wording of the petition in this thread. Nobody knows who Kish is, why would any of us have anything personal against a fellow Charlton fan who obviously wants to do something? All we are concerned about is that if and when it is time for a petition, that petition get 8,000, not 800 signatures, and addresses solely the problems we have with the club's owner.
I also believe that Kish, whoever he is, is more than capable of speaking for himself, and I've sent him the message that i'd be interested to talk to him by phone, or kick it around by email, if he would be interested too. But I think you already know that, don't you?
Comments
Luzon only went on Saturday! There's no need to rush something out within days just to "raise awareness". Surely it's far better to spend a bit of time co-ordinating a proper, unified response that has clear aims and a higher chance of traction/success then individuals throwing out campaigns on the spur of the moment.
What's better - 10 campaigns with mixed aims that don't represent the wider fanbase, each supported by 800 people, or one focussed campaign with a clear brief and unified message supported by 8,000? Clearly the latter will draw the most attention and be harder to ignore?
Try and channel some of this aggression into the campaign rather than throwing hyperbole at your fellow supporters.
Pomposity: The thrust of Prague's point was that someone else, Owen Gibson, knows something that we may not and that we may learn from his experience. Recognition that others may know more than us isn't pomposity, it is humility. Thinking that others have nothing to offer would be pomposity.
Belittling: I don't think that anyone is trying to belittle the author of the petition. As far as I can see any criticism has been levelled at the petition rather than the person. I think almost everyone here concurs that they are unhappy with the experiment and would like it to stop. The question is, how best to go about it. I think it's praiseworthy that the person concerned has been proactive, but I can't help but think they've jumped the gun and gone off in the wrong direction. They were clearly hoping to lead on something, but a central tenet of leadership is listening - with that in mind I hope they have listened to the views of those who feel that they can't join in on this particular activity.
Tolpuddle: The Tolpuddle Martyrs are actually a very good example of a movement that was successful because they discussed what to do rather than jumping on the first idea that was floated. Take a look at the timescales: On the 24th February 1834 the martyrs were arrested and on the 18th March 1834 sentenced to deportation at Dorchester assizes. The movement didn't demonstrate immediately, instead calling a meeting for the 24th March 1834. That meeting was attended by 10,000 people and it was here that it was agreed to hold a demonstration. A demonstration that wouldn't take place until almost a month later on 21st April 1834. That demonstration attended by 100,000 people marked the start of the petitioning stage and they organised these on an national basis and gathered 800,000 signatures. It was these signatures that led the Home Secretary to give conditional pardons, but it wasn't until another year of campaigning that the government capitulated and granted unconditional pardons. Taking their time, getting their campaign right and taking the people with them were essential parts of the Tolpuddle Martyrs campaign. They did not jump to the tune of the first person to shout.
Match Girls: The match girls situation is somewhat different. There was no workers organisation at Bryant and May, but at the time of the strike people were at breaking point; they were working 14 hour days in conditions that made them ill and led to premature deaths. When Annie Besant was sacked they felt that they had to take action. 1,400 went on strike from day one. It is hard to imagine the desperation that they would have felt to take such action. The big lesson of The Match Girls Strike is not that one individual can lead, it is that you can't bottle up resentment indefinitely - at some point people will take no more. Crucially though, their action took place together whilst they were at work. Nobody came up with a form of words that they expected others to follow without debate. They discussed what they were doing collectively.
Franz Ferinand: The assassination of the archduke may have been the trigger, but the war wasn't down to that. It was aggressive imperialism that caused the war. The war that would have happened sooner or later with or without Franz's demise.
Would you like to expand here on what exactly pissed you off so much about my comments, and I will try and answer them. It would be helpful to understand what made you differentiate mine from other equally critical posts. Was it simply my position in the Trust, or something else?
Regarding talking to the Trust and others beforehand, I just wanted to say that had he done so, we might at least have been able to help make it stronger, by for instance pointing out who administers the relevant fit and proper person test. We've learnt a lot from teaming up with other Trusts over the OS. for example petitions. Actually Steve Clarke and I were not much keen on the OS Petition. It was experienced people from other Trusts and Supporters Direct who persuaded us, and helped us make the petition sharp and effective. Without them it would not have happened.
Anyway, sorry I pissed you off. My bad choice of language. Back to thee match thread.!
Prague, I fully understood what the criticisms were and how hopelessly they were attempting to belittle somebody in Kish who had raised a petition which had got more than 800 supporters. The criticisms as I tried to point out to you were totally irrelevant to the success of the petition, which was to get the issue aired. It did. Your criticisms whilst technically correct may have given you the pyrrhic victory you so craved but to Kish the spoils.
Now lets get on with trying to raise the issue of the club's problems rather than go for self aggrandisement.
I also believe that Kish, whoever he is, is more than capable of speaking for himself, and I've sent him the message that i'd be interested to talk to him by phone, or kick it around by email, if he would be interested too. But I think you already know that, don't you?
Con on you reds