Blog Stats
- 88,920 hits
Archives
-
1 - YouTube
3 - Useful Links
- Architects and Engineers for Truth 0
- Bills going before Parliament 0
- British Law – Legislation UK Law direct from the source. 0
- British Parliament Records 0
- Cop Block UK 0
- Cop Block US 0
- Meltdown 2017 0
- Pageantry and PreCrime 0
- Peace Strike 0
- Public Access to Courts Electronic Records (US Courts) 0
- US Courts Public Information 0
- What Do They Know? 0
- WikiLeaks – (Dec 2010) 0
4 - News Media
5 - Documents
6 - UK Law
- Data Protection Act 1998 UK 0
- Freedom of Information Act 2000 UK 0
- Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 UK 0
- Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974 UK 0
- Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 UK 0
- Public Order Act 1986 UK 0
- Rice v Connoly 1966 QB – Refusal to answer police questions (Win) 0
- Terrorism Act 2000 UK 0
7 - Occupy Movement
-
Join 720 other subscribers
4TheRecord 
The process for this pprsooal may seem like it’s being handled as an emergency from your viewpoint, I get that. However, according to Occupy Columbus process, it’s not an emergency. As far as precedent for other major decisions goes, there’s been more access to information and more time for people to get access to the information on this pprsooal than many others in the past. The process was created the way it is so that we can get things done in a timely manner. An emergency, as defined by our process, would’ve allowed for a vote at the same meeting the pprsooal was initially presented. And, that’s the way we used to vote on EVERYTHING, before the process of proposing at one meeting, voting at the next was created. Someone would come to a GA, make a pprsooal, and it would be voted on at that same GA and those who weren’t present generally didn’t have a vote.So for this pprsooal, I’ve voluntarily extended the voting/discussion period at least one GA longer than is required by our process and was willing to extend it even further at the July 14, 2012 GA. However, extending it until this Tuesday’s GA would’ve inadvertently prevented someone who also wants to vote no, but for other reasons, from attending. I think it’s important to make sure people who feel strongly about an issue have the opportunity to be heard. Extending it longer than that would’ve been too long and unnecessary, in my opinion.This isn’t an emergency, but to me, it is urgent and shouldn’t need to wait until we’ve created a brand new process to deal with this one expenditure, while the countless other expenditures we’ve made in the past sailed through easily. The fact that I have to state this shows, to me anyway, some bias on your part against those arrested. But, that’s cool. I have my biases too and I will make arguments like yours at times against those I disagree with as well. I think everyone does sometimes.I saw your no’ vote on Facebook. It’s strange to me that you have not responded to any of my points or questions, as if you’re not willing to budge on your position even in the face of serious questions and points against it. And yet you write, I believe my comments make clear why. I think that’s relatively irresponsible and further hints that there may be other underlying reasons that you’re voting no.So, even though it’s likely to be futile as you’ll probably not respond to this direct point, I challenge this idea further: It would be better if we created a legal fund which rules could be established for rather than to simply disperse general funds ad hoc. This is the first time that you’ve mentioned anything about a legal fund. It seems like you’ve decided to abandon your previous ideas and you’re now creating yet another idea as an obstacle to getting these people the money they need. I get that you feel this process is moving too fast. However, people’s actual lives are at stake here. This pprsooal isn’t just an exercise in debate, rhetoric, and process. The longer these folks are without the funds they need to pay the courts, the more likely these funds will grow and additional late fees will be added or potentially jail time could be added as well. Also, as mentioned above, the process is slow in relation to past pprsooals at GAs.One of the reasons you’re reacting to this pprsooal is because I responsibly added it to occupycolumbus.org for your (and others) consideration. Other pprsooals that are made at GAs don’t get posted here. I’m sure you would have plenty of comments and concerns about them, but because they’re not posted here, you don’t even know about them. I agree with you that pprsooals and meeting notes need to be more transparent and accsesible. But, this is a separate issue. Please keep this in mind as you react negatively to a very appropriate and important pprsooal.Why would a legal fund be better for an issue like this than the GA making decisions on a case-by-case basis? Is it because you’d have more say via IRC in a smaller committee than you do at the GA, due to your inability to physically attend GAs? I think a better way to deal with a situation like this is to implement some way for folks to participate in GA decision-making outside of GAs, not move the decision-making for important issues into small, isolated groups. I wrote about my ideas on this here: One way to do this is the proxy voting process. Apparently, Robert is aware of this proxy voting process and how it impacts decision-making at the GA. I’m suspicious of this process, especially as Robert has explained it thus far, but I’m open to seeing how it plays out.So, in closing, I do not agree that you’ve explained why you feel a legal fund is better than disbursing funds on a case-by-case basis, nor do I feel you’ve answered the other questions I’ve asked or addressed the points I’ve raised. And, at the same time, I’m well aware that you are not required to respond to me in any way, or in any specific way, and I respect that. I will respect your no’ vote and how it fits into the overall process if that is what you wish, even while it’s amidst the many questions and counter-points that have gone unanswered and unaddressed.