Talk:Committee of 100 (United Kingdom)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Disambig
This should be two differnt pages + a disambiguation page.(I don't know how to do this) --JK the unwise 15:05, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Since the only pages linking to this one were referring to the nuclear disarmament Committee of 100, I've moved all the Chinese-American stuff to Committee of 100 (America). --Andrew Norman 13:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] George Blake
Is this the same group whose members (3 of them, anyway) were involved in the prison break of George Blake? If it is, can we have a mention here?
Yes - Blake was sprung by people linked to the Committee of 100. The Committee continued in a rather amorphous fashion throughout the sixties (organising events on Biafra and Vietnam) and its spin-off campaigns went on through the seventies (notably the Family Squatting Campaigns). A loose network of ageing veterans maintain contact to this day. Redrocker 13:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
I believe the people who sprung George Blake were Michael Randle and Pat Pottle, whose role was revealed 30 years later. Marshall46 13:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I added a paragraph mentioning this and referring to the relevant book. TC april 2008
I also mentioned the Greek State Visit and the Spies for Peace. TC april 2008.
- I've expanded the section on the Greek state visit of 1963 but removed the claim that the Committee of 100 helped to bring down the right-wing government of Greece. It's meaning was not clear: was it supposed to mean that the C100 helped bring down the Kanellopoulos government in 1967 or the regime of the Colonels in 1974? Neither claim was verifiable. Marshall46 (talk) 08:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Nicholas Walter was a good friend and an active memeber of the committee but it would not be proper to describe him as one of the committees leading theoreticians. Nor would he want to be so described. So I removed that comment. TC april 2008 Terrychandler (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Main article
I've added some more material: Bertrand Russell's founding statement, which explains what the Committee of 100 was all about; a bit more history; something about organisation; the origin of its name; a list of the original Committee of 100 (though, of course, they weren't actually a committee and some of them did no more than sign their names); and a few lines about its legacy. I've changed "members" to "supporters" because I don't think the Committee of 100 had formal membership. Marshall46 13:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this is a stub any more. Marshall46 23:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed its not. Good work.--JK the unwise 10:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The Committee did have formal members. "Signing their names" was no small thing. They were signing their names to conspiracy and incitement to civil disobedience and many were imprisoned for no more than signing their names in this way. Terry Chandler April 2008
- While I hesitate to contradict someone as expert and renowned as Terry Chandler (who made a great contribution to the cause), I must beg to differ to some degree.
- In reality, the Committee of 100 did not have formal membership but did have an initial core group (the Committee of 100). Many activists who paid the highest price, in terms of jail sentences, such as Onah Laah (5 years) were not original core members. Many 'core' members never went to jail if I remember right.
- I am not aware of anyone going to prison for just being signatories to the mission statement.
- The Scottish Committee of 100 did not even have a core group but was very active. Aimulti (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- I suppose the question is, "What is formal membership?" The minimum definition must be registration as a member, with or without a membership subscription, in which case the signatories of the Committee of 100 can be taken to be members. But were those who sat down in civil disobedience demonstration registered as members anywhere? Marshall46 (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Impact
I have reverted this paragraph:
"The force used by the police surprised many of the demonstrators, which, with the insistence on non-violence and the use by the police of pre-emptive arrests for conspiracy, discouraged many, and support rapidly dwindled. (Frank E. Myers, "Civil Disobedience and Organizational Change: The British Committee of 100", Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 86, No. 1. (Mar., 1971), pp. 92-112) Contemporary research showed that public support for the unilateralist cause actually declined in the period when the Committee of 100 was most active. (W.P.Snyder, The Politics of British Defense Policy, 1945-1962, Ohio University Press, 1964, p.61)"
Myers says that support rapidly dwindled following the early sit-downs and Snyder says that public support for the unilateralist cause fell off during the period of Committee of 100 activism. Terry deleted both and didn't doesn't provide any sources for his replacement statement that non-violent methods had a significant impact. I hesitate to say it, but this looks like POV. Marshall46 (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:C100.jpg
Image:C100.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Spies for Peace
Have added detail to this important section. I was part of the group that 'charged' the RSG and have referenced the addition from Stuart Christie's book. Aimulti (talk) 10:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)