<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<STYLE>.hmmessage P {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
BODY.hmmessage {
FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; FONT-SIZE: 10pt
}
</STYLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 9.00.8112.16437"></HEAD>
<BODY class=hmmessage bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>David,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>you wrote :)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>>People are free to air their disagreements over the decisions taken
with the new occupation over the public forums and via email if they wish.
<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>thats very generous of you....however it seems some
comments posted to Occupy Sheffield's facebook page have been removed? which
sort of defeats the point of the exercise - ref Sheffield Forum's various
threads for details.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>>I agree that all decisions should ultimately be taken
collectively at GA but I myself see no reason why they shouldn't be
taken retrospectively given the above circumstances and rescinded if
necessary. <BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>therein lies the problem - as Jean stated </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>> All of these decisions should have been made by OSGA
at the camp - this way of working is not consensual or directly democratic - who
says who is crew and can enter the building? who says what policies are to be
adopted - this way of working is incredibly authoritarian and
divisive</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>It is indeed - I think the balance between led and
leaderless organisations is quite crucial. However in the case of the Citadel -
I was allowed a quick look around and its not really safe for people to be in -
so I agree that usage should really be kept down to the team making it safe
- if only to make the work easier to control and manage, it does have huge
potential. The wider picture however is different. Trying to organise
a leaderless organisation is virtually impossible - its like trying to plait
fog. As a result some 'leaders' emerge no matter how inclusive you try to be and
when that group make decisions - its only to be accepted that sometimes not
everyone will agree - but everyone needs to sign up to it - as it stands it
seems more facist - 'do as we say'- sort of mentality of 'we know best' coming
to the fore and its fully understandable that people will rail against it.
The attitude of some of the 'camp elite' have driven me to all but withdraw from
any participation - I also feel that other people are heading the same way and
that the circle is getting smaller, looking inward and not actually encouraging
people to participate. I think on balance I agree with Jean's point in general
terms. I went also to the camp - not sure what I was meant to do there - I was a
bit concerned how rundown it was looking and eventually wandered away - having
stood in the rain for a while waiting for something to do - people just seemed
to want to drink tea. It could do with a jobs board - rather than have people
just stood around like spare parts.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I think thats all I want to say at the moment - good luck
with it.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Mick</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BODY></HTML>