Leeds experimented with Autonomy Statement. It was universally accepted by our group with a small amendment where we tried to bring it in line with our safer spaces policy so any organization would look towards working within our safer spaces policy as well. 2 people stood aside.
The people who stood aside on that decision were the two people who went ahead and hijacked the twitter account as occupy leeds. It really brought a useful discussion to our group and really made people's intent quite clear as to how they would represent the group.
David from Manchester. Some elements we talked about, firstly enforcement is a nonsense. Regardless of what was written down, we're not in a position to enforce anything. That takes you to the point of choosing to respect the people who you are choosing to associate with. If you don't then others you are with will make known to your their feelings if they feel you are being disrespectful.
A policy decision that an individual voice cannot speak for the entire group.
Stuff in a GA, is marked as such, stuff from a working group is marked as such. From an individual, ditto. Respecting each other is key.

For a similar reason (in Leeds) that they tried to link with the safer spaces policy, that the issue is fundamentally one of respect.

Carlos from Occupy Exeter, there at the last conference with statement of autonomy, brought back for discussions. It's due to be discussed and hopefully adopted at next tuesdays GA. Already people discuss statements of autonomy in our discussions. It's the closest thing Occupy Exeter has to a constitution.
Ruth Occupy London: The statement itself was brought to a GA, it had huge support but it was blocked by one person for reasons people found hard to understand, so it wasn't passed. It does have the general approval of people in London, and will probably be passed shortly.
In the meantime there will be lots of occasions where there have been a lot of debates online, about things that have been said in the name of occupy London. One commentator commented on what David Cameron said. That Occupy "welcomed David Cameron's strong words" - apparently it was meant to be ironic but not everybody saw it that way.
It seems to be a case where we need just a firm guideline, so for example if people want to meet with the FSA, we can't stop them, but we cannot let them do it in the name of Occupy London. 
The discussion online, there are some very good statements from people, for example "we are a broad church of people who seek incremental change for the better". The discussion about how to do it, has to involve how do we allow for people to speak for the group of people, as New York does.
In Edinburgh, if somebody speaks for Occupy then it always gets reported directly as "Occupy Edinburgh" by the media - the media does this by choice and it is not necessarily the problem of the person speaking with them not being clear enough about which group they represent.
Occupy is not for making careers, and not for other kinds of opportunism. I wanted to say there have been some groups who have been trying to co-opt Occupy onto their agenda. For example one group is working on setting up black business and black property, and that separatism really runs counter to what we're trying to do with Occupy.
Occupation Geneva: What we did in Geneva is, when we have a media and press group, when they come to us, we speak with them and ask them, before you print it or before you put it on TV, we want to see it first. We did this, and we don't let any journalist or newspaper put anything without our permission. It's what we do in Geneva, and it works.
We have a media and press group, we discuss it all in our GA.
A lot of Occupy camps are now having to work with groups in their local areas and other types of protest. There was an assembly specifically aimed at how you engage with other movements. They don't always have exactly the same line. One of the things that came up is that as long as any organization we work with agrees to 8 point statement (...)
The group (previously referred to about black homes and black jobs), wanted to co-host a meeting, they sent a threatening letter showing that they will pull out if we don't work with them.
Josh Occupy London direct point: Case specific points do not need to be gone into in such detail.
I suggest we have an assembly on how to work with other movements and how to have accountability is a very important thin to do.
If we get someone to write a guide on how to spot these patterns of behaviour in other people, we can avoid being subverted. Everyone must be able to rely on everyone so everyone can pick up on these issues.

Ruth London: 8 point statement is a nice idea but politicians are a very slimy bunch and they can say they would agree with anything, and that doesn't necessarily mean anything.
Some people want to speak with Occupy because it gives them great credibility, there is a lot of small scale co-opting like this.
We need to be aware of these people who will agree with completely opposing movements for their own gain.

Franklin: Think as a movement that autonomy is very important, but if we become too focussed on defining the view of Occupy.. well to me Occupy is more of an umbrella that makes it very hard to specifically align ourselves to any one specific set of ideas or opinions.
Nobody speaks for Occupy - Occupy is potentially just a space where everybody who feels the same can come and share. 
Sam: Just to re-iterate, do not empower people by giving them a voice when you know they are going to hurt the movement. You can legitimize their negative argument by even giving them attention or a platform, this can work against us.
Raghnild: At the same time we have to be careful not to exclude or police things when people in their personal standing decide to engage with an MP or whatever, so long as they're clear that what they say is in their personal opinion. We have to trust each other and we have to assume that people are acting with good intent.

Direct response: Language is key. You can see a participant, one of a collective, spokesperson whatever. If we have terminology that we use that people can easily understand we can suggest to people the direction at which we're coming from.

Occupy is like the largest think tank in the world, and one that is completely democratic and that anyone can join. We are a think tank where people can form (???) and then go off and do things on their own steam.

General point: I think it's right that we can speak to anybody as individuals, the problem is when that individual suddenly says they are "speaking for Occupy", or even associated with Occupy. One guy from London, a blue labour guy related to Miliband, has made a string of statements about asylum seekers and women, and he was invited to speak multiple times at the camp. Some people were horrified because what he was saying was considered a direct attack on us.

To me, a lot of the stuff we talk about is in connection with the voice, either written or spoken autonomy. From my perspective, the action always speaks more effectively than the words. I'd like to imagine a situation where we could not speak at all. What would people hear in terms of our actions? Autonomy in action is perhaps something to think about. We've talked about it in terms of helping other groups.
Folk who do have agendas and want to co-opt the movement, it's going to be hard time and time again for that person to help in things that the movement wants to do. I expect a lot of healthy differences, but it's important to find a good amount of common ground and to move forward with plenty of autonomous action. Actions louder than words.

Going back to the What Name you Speak In question. People being down as supports of Occupy is great, but we have repeatedly have people representing themselves as "representatives" of Occupy London. The Onus is on people to make it repeatedly and explicitly clear that they do not necessarily represent Occupy. 
Saying explicitly and very clearly all over our website, like a disclaimer, could be very effective.

Franklin proposes to take the meeting to an action point, how would we feel about having an official press release saying that there is nobody who can speak directly for Occupy because Occupy is a series of groups and nobody can outright speak as a representative, and nothing that anybody says could be directly construed in this way.
I've just been thinking, it always has to be a good policy to identify what is the optimum condition we wish to strive for, and then to consider what may be obstructive to achieving that optimum, as to whether or not that obstruction is really necessary.
If people are going to be interviewed by some newspaper or Occupy people want to interview some reps of government or whatever, then this should be wonderful, so long as everybody understand that it will be a recording, and if it's recorded it doesn't matter how outrageous things are being said, so long as everybody who wants to make progress with information for potential propaganda, has the means to do so. It shouldn't matter if you want to talk with Ken Liv or Boris Johnson or any other ruling bastard, what should matter is that there is preparation and it is to be expected that participants will be recorded and they accept this as a principle.

Also in relation to autonomy, it's really important that the working groups are not autonomous of the GA, and that they need to be representing ideals that have been set by consensus through the GA.
Also to realise that people may mess up with best intentions and that that needs to be allowed for, forgiveness etc.
There is a process which we're all trying to follow, and there are processes for emergencies, these should be agreed collectively and followed as far as practically possible.
 Wondering if UK uncut may have a model that Occupy could employ, as they have encountered similar issues. There was a very strenuous presentation when the person who was speaking on behalf of UK Uncut made it very clear that they did NOT represent UK Uncut. The way they engage with the media is certainly something that Occupy could consider.

The press sometimes come in the camp. We decided that if people staying in the camp must know about the movement, If you don't know about the movement then you don't need to be in the camp. We need to be sure we have people who have some brains to represent us well.

Responding to the lady's point about the role of the working groups accountability with regards to the GA. In Manchester recently we took a view that was to start from the default condition of trusting, that working groups will do what seems appropriate and right. 
Some people involved in working groups simply cannot be involved in GAs (for one reason or another), so the GAs role becomes one of monitoring the situation and preventing things from going systemically out of control. There may be accidents, and people should be trusted to get on with it in the right way.
Sam: Most powerful message I could take to camps, if you are going to be autonomous, it is easier to do something rather than ask for permission. Don't block people just because of process, allow them to ask for forgiveness and learn from mistakes AFTER fuck-ups rather than trying to pre-empt them through exhaustive use of process.

Ruth: Question to Manchester: do you have any experience of things going conspicuously wrong where the GA has brought it back on track.
We're not expecting to have systemic problems, and have not experienced any thus far, but we feel it is crucial that we at least have a system available to deal with this.

Proposal (Franklin): A rough draft, Occupy as a movement does not speak of itself and does not speak as an entity. Occupy is an umbrella that facilitates the unification of various groups looking for economic and social reform to facilitate a sustainable society and a way of life.
Proposal is that we have a press release, or release as a statement for what has been agreed at the national conference. It can become a phrase that we can express, so if the media asks us then we know the terminology to use to make it clear to them our intent.
Temp check on above proposal (or something along these lines): (largely approved). No blocks, two stand asides.
John stands aside because he feels it's for the individual groups to have their own statements of autonomy, and we should not propose one nationally for all groups. I don't want to block us in the future from being able to do this if we need.
Sam: So in a meta-way, the national conference doesn't speak for the nation, but it filters down and individual cities can decide among themselves and their working groups as they see fit.