Posts
Nye Frank Homicide Coverup
- Nye Frank: http://picasaweb.google.com/crystalfinancial/TheHomicideOfNyeFrankOffRoadRacingDragRacingSheriff#
The Ninth Circuit held that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because the law was clearly established that the Deputy District Attorney's speech---regarding false statements made by a sheriff's deputy in a warrant affidavit---"address
Riverside County denies this right -The Ninth Circuit held that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because the law was clearly established that the Deputy District Attorney's speech---regarding false statements made by a sheriff's deputy in a warrant affidavit---"addressed a matter of public concern and that his interest in the speech outweighed the public employer’s interest in avoiding inefficiency and disruption."
"Freeway Therapy" for Whistleblower Deputy D.A. The Ninth Circuit's opinion today in Ceballos v. Garcetti, no. 02-55418, is a fascinating read about how Deputy D.A. whistleblowers are treated, about how the First Amendment applies to the workplace, and about sovereign immunity. The Ninth Circuit held that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because the law was clearly established that the Deputy District Attorney's speech---regarding false statements made by a sheriff's deputy in a warrant affidavit---"addressed a matter of public concern and that his interest in the speech outweighed the public employer’s interest in avoiding inefficiency and disruption." And because the defendant district attorney was performing a county function (as opposed to a state function) when he took the alleged actions with respect to the plaintiff, neither the district attorney nor the county were entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.
10/17/2008
How to inhibit outrage -Tactics of officials to prevent justice
How to inhibit outrage
- Cover up the action.
- Devalue the target.
- Reinterpret what happened.
- Use formal procedures.
- Intimidate or bribe people involved.
10/16/2008
Nye Frank- Officers laugh in the video of interview of Ty Reddish telling how he attacks
Video of Ty Reddish telling his story to the sheriff staff in Riverside County shows him starting out by bending down to tell them about how he attacked Nye Frank with signature wrestling moves. He does this in hopes to avoid being recorded by the camera. The officers laugh as he tells how he a 27 year old man attacks a 68 year old man. I do not know how to load the video but if someone knows how please help. Ty's dad is the wrestling coach at Norco High School and goverment teacher. He tells the officer that the reason he is getting help is because he is a goverment teacher of past student Chief Deputy of Assemblyman Rod Pacheco, now DA Rod Pacheco.
How to help uncover the injustice of Nye Frank Homicide
Tactics against injustice:
the dynamics of backfire
As an individual:
think of an injustice you know a lot about.
For example:
• a bullying boss
• homelessness
• treatment of refugees
• the Holocaust
Rodney King beating
Rodney King beating
- Generated sympathy for Rodney King.
- Generated hostility to the police officers who did the beating.
- Generated adverse publicity for the Los Angeles Police Department.
Backfire
An attack can be said to backfire when it creates more support for or attention to whatever is attacked.
Conditions for backfire
- An action that is perceived as unjust, unfair, excessive or disproportional — a violation of a social norm.
- Communication to receptive audiences.
Rodney King beating backfire
- The beating was perceived as unjust in itself or as disproportionate to anything King had done.
- The beating was recorded on video and broadcast on television.
How to inhibit outrage
- Cover up the action.
- Devalue the target.
- Reinterpret what happened.
- Use formal procedures.
- Intimidate or bribe people involved.
Rodney King beating:
cover-up
- Resistance to accepting complaints
- Police code of silence
“It consists of one simple rule:
an officer does not provide adverse
information against a fellow officer” —Christopher Commission, 1991, p. 168
Rodney King beating: devaluing the target
- Calling Rodney King a felony evader, a monster, an ex-convict
- Arrests of Rodney King, media on hand
Rodney King:
Once a Bum, Always a Bum
By David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 9, 2003
Rodney King beating: reinterpretation
- Rodney King was a threat to the police
- Police were doing their duty
- The videotape proved that “Rodney King was always in control of the situation, not the officers” — Stacey Koon, Presumed Guilty, 1992, p. 182
Rodney King beating:
formal channels
- Christopher Commission
- Court case 1 against four police officers
- Court case 2 against four police officers
- Civil case against city, officers and police officials
Rodney King beating: intimidation
- Witnesses did not come forward
- Police use-of-force experts refused to testify
“We talked to any number of other force and policy experts, who told us the video showed excessive force … but none of them would go on the record. They said it would end careers.” — Alan Yochelson, quoted in Tom Owens, Lying Eyes, 1994, p. 266
Rodney King beating: inhibition of outrage failed
- Video did not subscribe to the police code of silence
- Video cut through media’s normal use of official sources and interpretations
- Video was not intimidated
- First trial verdict did not conform to popular perceptions of justice
Conditions for backfire
- An action that is perceived as unjust, unfair, excessive or disproportional — a violation of a social norm.
- Communication to receptive audiences.
Attacks on protesters backfire
Salt march, India, 1930
Attacks on protesters backfire
Sharpeville, South Africa, 1960
Attacks on protesters backfire
Santa Cruz cemetery, Dili, East Timor, 1991
Get into a group of 3 or 4 people — preferably people you didn’t know before.
In your group: decide on one injustice for later discussion.
Conditions for backfire
- An action that is perceived as unjust, unfair, excessive or disproportional — a violation of a social norm.
- Communication to receptive audiences.
Unfair dismissal backfire
- People perceive dismissal as unjust in itself or as disproportionate to anything the worker has done.
- The treatment is exposed to the world.
How to inhibit outrage
- Cover up the action.
- Devalue the target.
- Reinterpret what happened.
- Use formal procedures.
- Intimidate or bribe people involved.
Dismissal outrage:
inhibition by cover-up
- No announcement
- Reasons hidden
- Silencing clause
- Destruction of files
Dismissal outrage:
inhibition by devaluing the target
Derogatory labels: slacker, “difficult personality”
Rumours, e.g. theft, bullying, sexual behaviour
Dismissal outrage:
inhibition by reinterpretation
- Restructuring
- Change of duties
- Lack of money
- Worker’s inadequacies
Dismissal outrage:
inhibition by official channels
Lengthy, bureaucratic procedures: tribunals, courts, ombudsmen, etc.
Dismissal outrage:
inhibition by intimidation/bribery
- Poor references
- No pay-out
- Legal action
- Support management and keep your job
Me boss. You not.
For your group’s chosen injustice, discuss the 5 methods of inhibiting outrage. Write examples on a sheet of paper.
- Cover up the action.
- Devalue the target.
- Reinterpret what happened.
- Use formal procedures.
- Intimidate or bribe people involved.
The Mickelberg brothers
Ray
Peter
Avon Lovell
Conditions for backfire
- An action that is perceived as unjust, unfair, excessive or disproportional — a violation of a social norm.
- Communication to receptive audiences.
Defamation backfire
- People perceive defamation threats and actions as unjust in themselves or as disproportionate to anything a person has done.
- The treatment is exposed to the world.
How to inhibit outrage
- Cover up the action.
- Devalue the target.
- Reinterpret what happened.
- Use formal procedures.
- Intimidate or bribe people involved.
How to promote outrage
- Expose the action.
- Validate the target.
- Emphasise interpretation of the action as an injustice.
- Mobilise public concern (and avoid formal procedures).
- Resist and expose intimidation and bribery.
Promoting defamation outrage: exposure
- Leaflets, emails, website
- Use a support group
- Refuse silencing clauses
Promoting defamation outrage: validate the target
- Present an honest, principled image
- Personalise the story
- Behave well
Promoting defamation outrage: explain the injustice
- Emphasise the frame of censorship and free speech
Promoting defamation outrage:
• Avoid courts
• Don’t countersue
focus on campaigning
Promoting defamation outrage: resist intimidation
- Proceed with publicity
- Join with others
For your group’s chosen injustice, discuss options for promoting outrage and write them on a sheet of paper.
- Expose the action.
- Validate the target.
- Emphasise interpretation of injustice.
- Mobilise public concern (and avoid formal procedures).
- Resist and expose intimidation and bribery.
Hello, everyone! I want to talk to you about how to be more effective against injustice.
**************
In these notes, I give text along the lines of what I might say when running this talk/workshop, such as “Hello, everyone!” above. The shorter the time available, the briefer my comments.
After the asterisks (********) - like right here! - I give additional information or tell about how I run the interactive components, and give sources for graphics.
Resources for running this talk/workshop
- Computer, cables and projector
- This powerpoint show, or a version of it (adapted as you see fit)
- Rodney King beating video clip: see slide 3 (optional)
- Blank sheets of paper (optional)
- Handouts such as “Backfire basics” or “Resisting unfair dismissal” (optional)
Brian Martin, bmartin@uow.edu.au, http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/
Backfire resources: http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/backfire.html
3 August 2007
Except as noted, I have not sought permission to use the graphics. The user has responsibility for ensuring appropriate use. Usually there should be no problem when giving a talk. Publication would be another matter.
To begin, I have a little task for you.
******************
I only say more if it seems necessary to get people to do the task.
I give a couple of minutes for participants to do this. I walk around the room asking individuals whether they’ve thought of an injustice and, if not, offering suggestions. The key is they need to know a lot about it.
A reportback to the group is not needed, and might be unwise if some individuals have thought of an injustice that involves private matters.
You’ll notice that tasks for participants are on a green background.
I’m going to tell you about a particular action that many people thought was unjust.
Not long after midnight on March 3, 1991, Rodney King was beaten by officers of the Los Angeles Police Department. King was hit by two tasers (giving a 50,000-volt shock that incapacitates most people) and then struck dozens of times with metal batons, as well as being kicked, over a period of several minutes. More than 20 police were present at the beating, which was illuminated by floodlights from a police helicopter hovering overhead.
************
If the technology is available, this is the time to show a video clip of or about the beating (downloadable from the web, for example from http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lapd/kingvideo.html).
More information about the Rodney King beating from a backfire perspective is available in Brian Martin, “The beating of Rodney King: the dynamics of backfire,” Critical Criminology, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2005, pp. 307-326, http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/05cc.html Some of the notes in this slide show are taken from this article.
Photos: http://www.multishow.com.ar/rodneyking/
This beating probably would have become just another arrest statistic except for the fact that a portion of the incident was captured on videotape by an observer, George Holliday, who heard the commotion from his apartment nearby. After the video was screened on television, the beating became the most well known case of police use of force in history.
*************
Photo: http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/madon/socialpsychology280/extrareadings/Rodneyking.htm
The beating of Rodney King backfired on the police.
************
You don’t need to read out this definition. Let the audience read it for themselves.
There are two conditions for backfire.
************
You don’t need to read out these conditions. Let the audience read them for themselves.
The beating of King satisfied both conditions.
However, the King beating was very unusual. Most police beatings - and most injustices generally - do not backfire. So what do perpetrators do that prevents backfire?
What perpetrators do can be conveniently classified into these five categories. Let’s look at evidence of these tactics in the Rodney King case.
************
You don’t need to read out these five categories. Let the audience read them for themselves. (The same applies to all slide text.)
Most police beatings receive no publicity. The King case was a dramatic exception. Even so, it includes examples of cover-up.
George Holliday, who made the video of the beating, rang the local police station saying he had witnessed a police beating, intending to offer the video. However, the desk officer expressed no interest in what Holliday had to say, nor did the officer record a complaint. Paul King, Rodney King’s brother, attempted to make a complaint, but was given the brush-off. Indeed, Paul King was inappropriately asked whether he himself “had ever been in trouble”.
Without the video, no complaint about police misconduct might have been recorded.
The police code of silence prevails in most police departments. None of the 20 officers observing the beating reported any problem.
*************
Long-time Minneapolis police officer Michael Quinn wrote a book about the police code of silence.
For information: the Christopher Commission was set up as a result of the King beating.
Graphic: http://www.amazon.com/
King was easy to devalue, because he was drunk, possibly on other drugs, had been fleeing police in a high-speed chase, and had spent time in prison.
Tom Owens, a former Los Angeles police officer who was part of King’s legal team, described various attempts to smear King by associating him with crimes or by framing him. For example, on 28 March 1991, Los Angeles media reported that King was being investigated for two robberies early in the year, with the victims being shown photos of King by officers from the Foothills Division, where key police involved in the beating had worked.
Attempts at devaluation can continue for many years, as illustrated by David Horowitz’s article, more than a decade after the beating, in which he called King “a self-destructive lout,” “a pathetic bum,” and “a reckless criminal.”
************
Photo: http://www.hiphop-elements.com/img/5001/70.jpg
Los Angeles Police Department policy specifies a series of options, with escalating use of force: presence; verbalization; commands; firm grips; pain compliance; impact techniques; and deadly force. With King, police went through the stages of presence, verbalization, and commands, but he did not acquiesce. Stacey Koon, in charge of the arrest, ordered a “swarm”: four officers each grabbed one of King’s arms or legs, but he threw them off. Then Koon used two tasers, whose high-voltage shocks normally bring down the target, but King, unlike most people hit with tasers, was not subdued; he made a charge at officer Powell. Next on the list of force options was impact techniques. Koon instructed two officers to use their batons on King; the beating continued until King acquiesced. Koon said that the arrest was undoubtedly brutal, but it followed procedure.
Stacey Koon was the officer in charge of the arrest. Because the police adopt force options in response to the suspect’s behavior, the police attribute their own actions to the suspect.
******************
Photo: from the back cover of Koon’s 1992 book Presumed Guilty
The King beating was seen by many as a blatant injustice, leading to demands that justice be done, with a range of possibilities for obtaining “justice” expressed, including penalties for the police involved in the beating, resignation of police chief Gates, reform of the police to reduce brutality, and new policies to redress the economic and political disadvantage of poor minority inner-city communities in Los Angeles and elsewhere.
The Christopher Commission was set up by the Los Angeles Police Department and city government. It reported within a few months, but there has been little publicity about whether its recommendations have been implemented.
The court cases targeted the four police officers involved in the arrest. Some say they were scapegoats for systemic problems in the Los Angeles Police. There was also a civil trial.
****************
Rodney King graphic: http://in.news.yahoo.com/060511/137/646gf.html
Tom Owens tracked down quite a number of witnesses to the beating of King, most of whom were reluctant to comment, much less testify, due to fear of reprisals. Freddie G, one of the two passengers in King’s car during the chase before the beating, was killed a few months later in a car crash. Owens spoke to witnesses who said the car was run off the road.
Police and others who spoke out critically about the Los Angeles Police Department and chief Gates suffered threats and harassment.
In most cases, the methods of inhibition are successful. The King beating was an exception.
***************
This slide attempts to make the point about inhibition being unsuccessful by ascribing human characteristics to the video. You can rewrite these points in a more conventional form if you want, along these lines:
- The video provided evidence directly to television viewers, cutting through cover-up.
- Normally the media present police use of force from the police’s perspective, but the video was so newsworthy that the media included a victim perspective (namely Rodney King’s).
- Screening of the video meant that intimidation could not be fully successful in promoting cover-up.
Four police officers were charged and brought to trial. A year later, on 29 April 1992, they were found not guilty. This caused widespread anger over justice denied, an extension of the original outrage over the King beating. News of the verdict triggered a massive riot in South Central Los Angeles in which more than 50 people died, thousands injured, and 800 buildings were burned with more than $900 million in property damage.
As the riot proceeded, President George H. Bush (senior) promised a new, federal trial of the officers. This time two of them were found guilty and there were no disturbances.
********************
Riot photo and Time cover: http://in.news.yahoo.com/060511/137/646gf.html
Now let’s look at some other attacks that backfired. The same two conditions apply.
In 1930, Gandhi led a campaign against British rule, using the convenient target of the unpopular salt laws. The British had a monopoly on making salt and taxed it as well. Gandhi led a 24-day march to the sea, where participants engaged in civil disobedience by making salt from seawater. Later, protesters walked calmly towards a saltworks, where they were beaten by police. This assault caused outrage in Britain, the US and other countries via eloquent news stories written by journalist Webb Miller. Police beating of nonresisting protesters was the injustice; Miller’s stories communicated to receptive audiences.
**************
Photo of women breaking the salt law being assaulted by British Police, http://www.mahatma.org.in/pictures/showpics.jsp?picture=piccat0006&link=ph&id=40&cat=pictures
On 21 March 1960, blacks across South Africa protested against the unpopular pass laws. In South Africa, the white government ruled the majority black population in a system called apartheid; the pass laws controlled movement by blacks. In the town of Sharpeville, police opened fire on the crowd of protesters, killing perhaps a hundred people, most of whom were shot in the back as they ran away. Journalists were present; their stories and photos made the massacre a front-page story around the world, undermining the reputation of the South African government.
********************
Photo: http://www.photooikoumene.org/histori/newdelh/aparth.html
On 12 November 1991, thousands of people in Dili, the capital of East Timor, joined a funeral march, using it to peacefully protest against Indonesian occupation of the country. Indonesian troops surrounded the marchers and, as they entered Santa Cruz cemetery, opened fire without warning, killing hundreds of people. Previous massacres in East Timor received little attention, but this time western journalists were present, who testified about what happened. British filmmaker Max Stahl captured the events on videotape; when shown internationally, the images generated outrage and led to a huge increase in support for East Timor’s independence.
*********************
Santa Cruz marchers, http://www.etan.org/timor/SntaCRUZ.htm
Santa Cruz aftermath, http://pilger.carlton.com/timor/santacruz
This is the most challenging step. Please get up and join a group of 3 or 4 people - preferably ones you know least. Discuss your chosen injustices and choose one.
*******
This process should take a few minutes. During this time, I walk around and check in on groups to see whether they’ve chosen an injustice. If not, I sometimes suggest one. The injustice can be something a group member has personal experience with - such as bullying at work - or can be something read about, such as the Holocaust. The key criterion is that at least one group member knows quite a lot about the injustice.
I now want to consider a different example.
---
*****************
You can let this slide speak for itself.
A bit more information on this issue is available from “Resisting unfair dismissal: a campaigning approach,” http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/05ud.pdf
Cartoon: http://www.consortiumpublishing.co.uk/images/Employment_Law/46b.JPG, used in “Resisting unfair dismissal: a campaigning approach” by permission of Mosedale/Consortium, www.consortiumpublishing.co.uk
The same five methods of inhibition apply.
Cover-up can occur in various ways. Sometimes dismissals occur without any formal announcement. Sometimes the real reasons are not revealed. If a worker sues for unfair dismissal, in many cases the settlement agreement requires that neither party speak out about it. Sometimes information is destroyed.
This cartoon draws its humour from the boss, in dismissing a worker, being unexpectedly candid.
*****************
Cartoon: http://members.aol.com/yourefirednow/myhomepage/yourefired-subordinate.gif
Dismissed workers are commonly slandered and blamed for how they are treated.
************
Graphic: http://www.leighthompson.com/media/images/bully_350.gif
Rationalisations are commonly given for dismissals. The real reason might be that the worker was a whistleblower or union activist. Standard justifications make the process sound reasonable or understandable.
****************
Cartoon: http://www.nicholsoncartoons.com.au/cartoons/new/2004-11-12%20Unfair%20dismissal%20laws%20more%20jobs%20226.JPG, permission not required for nonprofit use
Dismissed workers can go to a host of agencies for redress. Official channels give the appearance of justice: many people think the worker’s complaint is being dealt with fairly. But in practice, nearly all formal channels take a long time, focus on procedural details rather than moral justice, pit the worker (often without an income) against a powerful organisation, and keep the matter out of the public eye.
*****************
Cartoon: http://www.corp-psych-mgmt.com/Fired.jpg, used in “Resisting unfair dismissal: a campaigning approach” by permission of Corporate Psychological Management, www.corp-psych-mgmt.com
Many dismissed workers are afraid to complain for fear of receiving a poor reference from their former employer. If they go to court, they may be offered a settlement, a form of bribe to keep quiet henceforth. Sometimes they are threatened with defamation or other legal actions.
Co-workers may keep quiet in order to keep their own jobs. Those who join in the attack on a dismissed worker sometimes are rewarded with salary rises.
***********************
Graphic: http://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/basics/unfair-flowchart.htm, used in “Resisting unfair dismissal: a campaigning approach” by permission of the copyright holder, LAW on the WEB at www.lawontheweb.co.uk
*****************
I have A3 sheets to hand out to the groups. When there are just a few groups, I can visit each one for a minute or two, discussing the issues. When there are more groups, I try to visit each one at least once, briefly. When most groups have covered all 5 methods — maybe about 10 minutes — I go on to the next slides. When there is plenty of time, it’s possible to have a brief reportback from groups. Alternatively, groups that have finished can compare their examples with other groups.
In 1982, 68kg of gold was swindled from the Perth Mint. Three brothers — Ray, Brian and Peter Mickelberg — were convicted of the crime and went to prison. Brian was acquitted after 9 months in prison; he died in a plane accident. Ray spent 8 years in prison and Peter 6 years. In 2004 their convictions were quashed after Ray Lewandowski, one of the police involved in the case, admitted they had been framed.
***************
Ray and Peter Mickelberg photos: http://www.abc.net.au/wa/stories/s1148640.htm
Avon Lovell, a journalist, wrote a book titled The Mickelberg Stitch, alleging a police frame-up. The book was selling briskly after its release in 1985 until the police sued Lovell, his publisher and printer for defamation, and threatened actions against bookshops selling the book. Members of the West Australian police contributed $2 per week from their salaries to fund dozens of defamation actions, which tied Lovell up for a decade. He made a thousand court appearances in this time, an average of one every three days. Eventually the cases were settled and Lovell could sell The Mickelberg Stitch. He’s shown here autographing the new edition.
This case shows how defamation actions can serve as a form of censorship. It also shows how official channels — the 40 defamation cases — can bog a person down. But to illustrate how to oppose censorship via defamation law, I turn to another case.
**************
More information about defamation from a backfire perspective, see Brian Martin and Truda Gray, “How to make defamation threats and actions backfire,” Australian Journalism Review, Vol. 27, No. 1, July 2005, pp. 157-166, http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/05ajr.html
Avon Lovell photo: http://www.bookscope.com.au/images/Avon&Books.jpg
A reminder.
In the late 1980s, an anarchist group called London Greenpeace (not related to Greenpeace International) put out a leaflet titled “What’s wrong with McDonald’s?”, telling about nutritional shortcomings of the food, low wages paid to workers, and loss of rainforest in clearing land for beef production, among other issues. McDonald’s sued five members of London Greenpeace for defamation. Three of them acquiesced and withdrew. But two of them — Helen Steel and Dave Morris — refused to give in. The so-called McLibel court case was the longest running in British history — and it was a public relations disaster for McDonald’s.
******************
McLibel film graphic, http://www.redvicmoviehouse.com/show.php?pageid=217
McDonald’s had long used defamation threats and actions against competitors and critics. Even people named McDonald who ran a family restaurant were taken to court. McDonald’s used the familiar five methods of inhibiting outrage.
For each of the methods of inhibiting outrage, there are methods of promoting outrage. I’ll illustrate each of these through McLibel examples.
Rather than keeping quiet about a defamation threat, it’s often more powerful to tell a lot of people about it. A large number of people rallied to the support of Steel and Morris, producing leaflets and setting up a popular website, www.mcspotlight.org. Steel and Morris refused offers to settle the case that would have restricted their right to speak about it.
***********
Photo: http://chronicle.augusta.com/images/headlines/062097/biz_mclibel.jpg
Steel and Morris were the human face of resistance to McDonald’s. They were difficult to devalue because they were low-income workers - Steel was a gardener and Morris a postman - and fought the case as a matter of principle, with no vested interests.
*****************
Helen Steel and Dave Morris photo: http://www.orlandoweekly.com/film/review.asp?rid=7385
McDonald’s justified its defamation action as protecting its reputation. McLibel activists instead framed the issue as one of censorship versus free speech.
**************
Censorship face: http://www.mcspotlight.org/beyond/www.html
Text graphics, http://www.mcspotlight.org/company/other_mclibels/index.html
When a powerful organisation sues individuals, its greatest advantage is in court, where expensive legal counsel and procedural tricks can overcome or wear down resistance. Steel and Morris went through the court process, but they and their supporters used it to mobilise support through publicity and direct action.
To magnify outrage, it is usually better to avoid court as much as possible and not to countersue. Steel and Morris didn’t follow this advice, but even so the scale of the McLibel campaign was so great that the overall emphasis was on campaigning.
**************
McLibel leafletting and protesting photos: http://www.veggies.org.uk/arc/event.php?ref=225
It is easy to be intimidated by a defamation threat or action. To maximise outrage, it is vital to resist, though this is easier said than done. Generating publicity and building a support network make it easier to stand up to those who sue.
***************
Graphic: McLibel support, http://www.mcspotlight.org/people/biogs/msc_uk.html
---
*******************
This is the final exercise in the talk/workshop. Again, I visit groups to see how they’re going and exchange ideas. If there’s time, groups can compare their results with each other, either in pairs of groups or by inviting people to roam around the room looking at the sheets produced by other groups.
At the end of the workshop, I distribute copies of leaflets, such as “Backfire basics” and “Resisting unfair dismissal,” or I just say there’s plenty of information on the web: just put “Brian backfire” into Google.
****************
This is a blank slide in case you want to answer questions without text in the background. Or you could add a colourful picture.
10/14/2008
Picasa Web Albums - dbreedlove - TheHomicideOfNyeFrankOffRoadRacingDragRacingSheriff#
Picasa Web Albums - dbreedlove - TheHomicideOfNyeFrankOffRoadRacingDragRacingSheriff#.
10/03/2008
10/02/2008
No protection for Lee Frank Nye Frank Homicide Coverup: Nye Frank back, Tys knees took skin off
Nye Frank Homicide Coverup: Nye Frank back, Tys knees took skin off.hhttp://tinyurl.com/3mx46m
Darin, take your lips off Benoit's rear end for a minute please.
I know Phil Reddish didn't teach you to be a brown-noser when you were at Norco High.
Have some self-respect, or at the very least remember the neighborhood.