A beautiful, sensuous surface is one of the principle goals of meticulous drawing. For the past 500 years, certain artists in each era have maintained fine rendering and attention to surface as a priority in their work. Making these beautiful drawings requires different skills from making good paintings. Many talented painters lack the light touch and sensitivity to produce a sensuous surface on paper. Perhaps the ultimate tool in the meticulous technique is a medium called "silverpoint".
Metalpoint drawing dates from the Renaissance era well before the use of graphite or "lead" pencils. Any metal in wire form can be used to make drawings: copper, gold, platinum, bronze or silver. So, silverpoint is, in fact, a specific type of metalpoint drawing.
Martin Schongauer, the 15th century draftsperson, engraver and teacher of Albrecht Durer, was an early master of meticulous drawing technique. Work on unforgiving metal engraving plates demanded extraordinary finesse and skill; Renaissance printmakers were highly motivated to develop their precisionist talents. In this engraving, Schongauer shows the elegant, serpentine line that is also readily achievable with silverpoint. A close-up of the engraving reveals the technique called "single hatch"--so named because all the lines go in the same direction.
Using silverpoint, tonal differences are built up very slowly and the resulting tonal range is narrow--so the contrast is low--as in this Durer portrait.
Albrecht Durer's pen and ink drawings often use single-hatch technique as do certain of the artist's engravings, but the darker, denser engravings such as the "Adam and Eve" shown here are multi-hatch.
Artists, whether Old Master or contemporary, who are most successful in silverpoint drawing are those with a deep concern for beauty of surface. So an artist such as Leonardo, who was perhaps the most sensitive draftsperson in all art history, is much more successful in silverpoint than an artist such as Michelangelo who is relatively heavy-handed in his drawing.
Interestingly, the Venetian painter Canaletto is a master of the sensuous surface and light touch in his pen and ink drawings and etchings--but not in his paintings. This etching gives a sense of Canaletto's finesse in handling line; it is remarkable that this work is from the hand of the same painter whose major output was the stiff, uninspired tourist paintings of Piazza San Marco.
This pen and ink drawing by Rembrandt shows the artist using single-hatch in a broad way. His marks are relatively strong with the single-directional strokes giving a visual rhythm--rather than a refined continuous surface--to the drawing.
In this drawing, 18th century French painter Jean Honore Fragonard creates a beautifully sensuous surface with the single-hatch technique.
Another French artist of the period, Pierre Paul Prud'hon uses the single-hatch technique then rubs it slightly to get a slightly softer smudged effect. This work--a chalk drawing not a silverpoint--shows the extremely beautiful surface that Prud'hon achieved with a tricky technique that, if mishandled, becomes murky, smudged chaos.
In the 19th century, the noted French portraitist Ingres employed the slow buildup of small marks and works in a very narrow tonal range as in this graphite drawing.
The 20th century meticulous draftsperson continues to use the single-hatch technique; we see this in contemporary artist John Wilde's silverpoint at the left. In this drawing, Wilde's Surrealist figurative image has the sense of an earlier period because it floats unattached to any anchoring background.
In general, prior to the 20th century, draftspeople didn't take responsibility for the whole page. Most of early silverpoint drawings are of a central image with a considerable area of vacant space surrounding it.
Many contemporary artists have chosen to work the whole page. This drawing by Bill Richards shows this tendency in the extreme. Richards is a well-known artist working in a meticulous technique who creates very sensuous surfaces; his drawings are not silverpoint but remain in the low-contrast world of a 5H to 9H graphite.
Both Victor Kulbak and Bill Richards' teacher Joe Smith create drawings with a slow building up of subtle contrasts. Marilyn Rabetz uses colored pencils but with this same painstaking layering. Peggy Preheim combines the technique of single-hatch with a reinforcing layer of tiny circles to add intensity to her work that features a small-scale image as the focal point of a large, otherwise empty sheet.
Meticulous technique is not confined to Realist artists. Dotty Attie uses meticulous drawing to interpret fragments of artworks interspersed with words in the style of the Conceptualists. At right is an example of Susan Schwalb's use of silverpoint in a most unexpected approach to minimalist abstraction.
Ben Shechter does the unusual in sometimes moving from figuration to landscape in his silverpoint drawings.
In my later career, I (Laura Shechter) have moved away from silverpoint to a significantly softer 2H pencil to make more "baroque", higher contrast, works. This silverpoint Bottom Shelf dates from around1980, my earlier--more patient--period.
The tool for holding the metalpoint wire is called a stylus. The modern version of the stylus is a "pin vise" which, like the holder for an Exacto blade, tightens to grip the wire and hold it securely in place. To sharpen the metal wire point, one uses a sharpening stone in a rotating motion. The initial point takes a long time to achieve, but thereafter the sharpening process is less arduous. In order to accept the metals mark, the drawing surface needs to be a prepared commercial paper (these are coated with base-chalk or with clay as in the case of cameo papers) or alternatively a hand-prepared gesso, tempera, or gouache surface to which the wire residue will adhere.
All metalpoint materials will oxidize and darken over time eventually giving the drawing's surface a slight shimmer. Silverpoint takes on a slightly brownish color, copper a greenish cast and bronze a yellowish cast. Exposure to sunlight speeds the oxidizing process.
Working with silverpoint takes practice. It may be best to train by working with a very hard pencil--such as a 5H graphite. Because silverpoint uses a sharpened wire, there is a tendency to dig into the paper's surface making holes. Silverpoint cannot be erased or changed. The surface is brittle and unalterable; so silverpoint is a medium inappropriate for loose sketching. Errors are best made in the preparatory phase before transfer to the final paper.
Silverpoint technique is developed by practice: consider picturing the point as a feather, making a stroke heavier at first and lighter at the end. Learning to control silverpoint is very useful in training the hand for creating graphics; it makes drypoint possible and etchings or lithographs easy.
In terms of costs of materials, silverpoint is an inexpensive technique in which to work because a few inches of wire will last a lifetime. But in terms of labor and patience, it is a very costly medium. Silverpoint is a time-intensive process; typically a finished 8" X 10" drawing takes 100-200 hours to complete.
BIDDINGTON'S reports today's art buzz gleaned from artists' studio visits, art events & art gallery openings.
and BIDDINGTON'S upmarket, online art & antiques auctions.


text:
Archive for Abolish Human Abortion
I support the ban on all abortion because I AM pro-life !
Posted in Uncategorized with tags Abolish Human Abortion, abortion ban, AHA, Joe Silk, Oklahoma, Pro-Life, SB1118 on March 9, 2016 by saynsumthn
For several days there have been people in Oklahoma asking for abortion to be banned.
As I wrote yesterday, a law was proposed by the group Abolish Human Abortion. I know them well. I have debated them on this blog, on social media and in person. I have attended their meetings and listened to their views and every time I walked away unable to sign onto what they were doing.
My issues included their unrelenting criticism of the Pro-life Movement, for which many of them were not only uninvolved in, but sat out in apathy.
But, today, despite some who continue to throw attacks at pro-life leaders and this movement, today they have convinced 10 Oklahoma legislators to sign onto an all out ban on abortion (SB1118).
The bill goes beyond what we have previously seen proposed such as the Heartbeat Bill.
When I supported the Heartbeat Bill, I did so knowing that it was opposed by some as bad strategy. My friend Janet Folger Porter stood almost alone in pushing for this legislation and I respect her for doing it. She has lost many pro-life friends for exposing those who refuse to protect a child from the moment their heartbeat begins.
When I took part in the Rescues in the 1980's, I supported that movement despite the fact that many criticized it as bad strategy. Now, I cannot sit here and remain silent on what I see occurring in Oklahoma this week.
Perhaps, like me, you have been turned off by AHA. Perhaps, like me, you have listened to what I know to be an inaccurate account of our history. Perhaps…
But – the ones I see speaking out are not just what I would call the AHA Leaders. They are moms and dads – young people. The message is simple NO ABORTION!
I have called myself pro-life for over 30 years. That means, I oppose abortion. Strategy or not – I am going to oppose abortion – All Abortion! I am not going to stay silent and watch simple people with a simple message that I believe to be true be ignored. I understand strategy -but- I also understand that it is not right to ignore what is happening. Maybe- just maybe this will backfire – or – maybe God will use it. That will be in God's hands.
This is not any kind of an announcement that I am an "abolitionist" no – I still have issues with what I see spoken in that movement.
Instead this is one simple pro-life women saying – good job – I support you to those who are courageously standing up for an abortion ban. I stand with you! I am Pro-Life and I will stand FOR Life! It is and has been my position.
In addition, I am going to encourage any lawmaker that is willing to say NO ABORTIONS.
And….I am not going to bash those who disagree with me on this.
To my pro-life friends, If all we trust in is what we have done before – we will never move forward. The sad reality is that a new SCOTUS majority may also strike our gains…anything can happen.
I respect the position of many of those who lead my beloved movement – I understand the sweat and hard work of everything we have accomplished.
But, all I know is that today- there is a call to ban abortion.
Tomorrow belongs to God and these children are in His hands….
"Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin." ~ James 4:17.
Put differences aside to end abortion and be our brother's keeper
Posted in Uncategorized with tags Abolish Human Abortion, Abortion, AHA, brothers keeper, Charles Spurgeon, Dr. George Grant, Pro-Life on March 8, 2016 by saynsumthn
What does it mean to be "my brother's keeper?" This question has been asked time and again by Christians over the years. It played out in the first pages of the Holy Bible when we read how Cain killed Abel (Genesis 4:9) :
Afterward the LORD asked Cain, "Where is your brother? Where is Abel?"
"I don't know," Cain responded. "Am I my brother's guardian?"
In this story Cain was jealous that God chose the sacrifice of his brother Abel over his – so he murdered his own brother. But, can we in effect do the same thing with our neglect to do what is right to help our brother? What happens if our inaction brings about more years of suffering for our brother?
Charles Spurgeon, the feisty preacher credited by some for bringing great revivals in the 1800's once asked, "What say we of those who never sow? Well, they will never reap; they will never have the joy of harvest."
In his history of the Pro-life movement from the viewpoint of the early church, Dr. George Grant described the effectiveness of the church with regard to protecting life and the secret for success:
"The church was only effective in its task of protecting innocent life when it remained steadfast in doctrinal purity and Scriptural fidelity. Whenever it began to slide into comfortable heresies of the day, it became compromised and impotent. But whenever it would "earnestly contend for the faith once and for all delivered to the Saints" (Jude 3). God blessed its efforts gloriously. Whenever and wherever it took its every cue from the dictates of the sovereign God, it was remarkably successful.
So simple are these words that I often think some of us have become so embattled we can forget that the goal is to simply stand for truth, protecting life. Grant, considered at one time a giant in the pro-life movement and whose historical documentation dated 1991 when the call was to rescue those being led to the slaughter also writes:
"As a single interest group the pro-life movement has failed. As a political force it has proven to be a disappointment. As an institutional philanthropic enterprise, it has been more than a little impotent. But, as an outreach of the historic church, it has had stunning success. The modern pro-life movement has proven that commitment to the sanctity of life is the consequence of the Spirit's work in the authentic sacramental church."
Keeping this in mind it becomes important to remember that the work of the Spirit belongs to the Spirit. He is the one who puts it forward and the one that should get the glory. And, if this is my belief as it is yours, why couldn't we support an all out ban on abortion even if it comes from those once known for their criticism of our very movement? Well…such a bill exists and as Christian News has recently reported and as Saynsumthn has also documented, it was proposed by the group Abolish Human Abortion, which has been very contentious with the "pro-life movement" regarding immediate versus incremental methods to end abortion.
Oklahoma State Senator Joseph Silk, sponsor of S.B. 1118, which includes "abortion" under the murder statutes.
Sen. Joe Silk, R-Broken Bow, recently introduced S.B. 1118 which adds killing an unborn child to existing murder statutes.
"No person shall perform or induce or attempt to perform or induce an abortion after conception," it reads. "A person commits murder in the first degree when that person performs an abortion as defined by Section 1-745.5 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes."
The bill defines abortion as "the use or prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug or any other substance or device to intentionally kill an unborn human being" and provides the unborn with protection from the moment of conception.
My personal goal is to see abortion end in our nation- through whatever means God chooses to use. He chooses to use His people – all of us – if we so choose. That is why I would like to get behind any effort that seeks to protect our preborn neighbors.
As was the day when slavery existed in the world – we saw incredible bravery as individuals rose up to cry for an end to the slave trade. America was rich with defenders of the slave from the outspoken William Garrison to former slaves themselves like Frederick Douglas we heard time and again how the cry rang on "No compromise with slavery."
The abolitionists often pierced the hearts of those in their day with the simple message asked by Jesus "Who is my brother?" Imergery from that era showed the enslaved Black man asking: "Am I not a man and a brother?"
Dietrich Bonhoeffer defines "who is our brother" in the Cost of Discipleship where he writes:
"The first law which Jesus commends to His disciples is the one which forbids murder and entrusts their brother's welfare to their keeping. The brother's life is a divine ordnance and God alone has the power over life and death. There is no place for the murderer among the people of God…"
Spurgeon also expounds on "who is thy brothers keeper" when he writes in the aforementioned text:
Shake yourselves up, brothers and sisters, from sinful sloth. "Oh!" says one, "I am not my brother's keeper." No, I will tell you your name; it is Cain. You are your brother's murderer; for every professing Christian, who is not his brother's keeper, is his brother's killer;and be you sure that it is so; for you may kill by neglect quite as surely as you may kill by the bow or by the dagger.
As you ponder this history, we look to today as we face the possibility of a Supreme Court that could turn majority hostile to life and we ask, as they did so many times before over the course of history, with whom do we place our trust: in God or in man? If we abandon an opportunity to propose measures that end all abortions because it has not worked before, or it "will never pass" are we being truly honest to our core and our deeply held values? How will history itself play out at this crossroads?
An incident documented in the book Amazing Grace by historian Eric Mextaxas on the life of the great British abolitionist, William Wilberforce, gives us some direction and perhaps insights. It reads as follows:
When he [Wilberforce] spoke that day urging Parliament to strike from the peace agreement the clause that gave the French five more years of their commerce in human beings, he sounded especially toward the end of his wholly unprepared speech, like what one could well imagine the conscience of the nation might sound:
"When the heads of all those now living are laid low, and the facts which now excite such powerful feeling are related by the pen of the cold, impartial historian, when it is seen that an opportunity like the present has been lost, that the first act of the restored King of France was the restoration of a trade in slavery and blood, what will be the estimate formed of the exertions which this country has employed, of the effect which they have produced upon a people under such weighty obligations? Surely no very high opinion will be indulged either of British influence or of French gratitude."
Please consider coming together to seek an end to abortion. Let's put differences aside to be our brother's keeper!
"We make alliances of peace where we ought to proclaim war to the knife; we plead our constitutional temperament, our previous habits, the necessity of our circumstances, or some other evil excuse as an apology for being content with a very partial sanctification, if indeed it be sanctification at all. We are slow also to rebuke sin in others, and are ready to spare respectable sins, which like Agag walk with mincing steps. The measure of our destruction of sin is not to be our inclination, or the habit of others, but the Lord's command. We have no warrant for dealing leniently with any sin, be it what it may." ~ The Treasury of David.
OK ballot initiative seeks to outlaw all abortions
Posted in AHA with tags Abolish Human Abortion, Abortion, AHA, amendment, ballot, Constitution, initiative, Oklahoma, outlaw abortion, Pro-Life, T Russell Hunter, Thomas R Hunter on February 12, 2016 by saynsumthn
A ballot initiative in Oklahoma filed by a Norman resident attempts to outlaw all abortions in the state. Thomas R. Hunter, filed the proposed petition in January with the Secretary of State to amend the Oklahoma State Constitution to "prohibit abortion."
The proposed amendment, designated as State Question 782, Initiative Petition 406 reads:
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA THAT THE FOLLOWING
SECTION BE ADDED TO ARTICLE 2 OF THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION:
A. As used in this section:
1. "Abortion" means the use or prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or device to intentionally kill an unborn human being;
2. "Unborn human being" means the offspring of human beings from the moment of conception until either live birth or death, including the human conceptus, zygote, morula, blastocyst, embryo and fetus, whether conceived and/or located inside or outside the body of a human female;
3. "Conception" means the fertilization of the ovum of a female individual by the sperm of a male individual.
B. It shall be unlawful for any person to perform, procure, or attempt to perform an abortion.
C. Any person who performs or procures an abortion shall be guilty of homicide.
To get the measure on the ballot in November, Hunter will need to collect 123,725 signatures. But, according to Oklahoma state law any citizen in the state can oppose any petition on the basis that they believe that it the proposal is not Constitutional. Ryan Kiesel, executive director of the pro-abortion ACLU of Oklahoma said his group could launch a protest before the signatures are gathered to keep it off the ballot or challenge it later should the necessary signatures be collected to get it on the ballot.
In response, Hunter told Tulsa World, that "The question is whether or not the Supreme Court ruling that born people have the right to kill unborn people was, in fact, constitutional in the first place."
"That is what needs to be challenged," he stated.
"You can search day and night through the Constitution and you will never find one line supporting the idea that human beings can be deprived of the right to live simply because they are small, weak and unwanted," Hunter added.
In addition to local abortion supporters speaking out against the initiative, 2016 pro-abortion presidential candidate Hillary Clinton also weighed in.
Hillary for America Senior Policy Advisor Maya Harris called the petition another "unrelenting attack" on women's rights, according to OkcFox, who received an e-mailed statement from the campaign.
"Hillary Clinton believes Oklahoma women have a constitutional right to safe, legal abortion and to contraception, and they deserve to be able to make their health care decisions without interference from government or extreme special interest groups," Harris wrote, according to the local Fox media outlet.
"Banning abortion and common forms of birth control is not only unconstitutional — it is bad for the health of Oklahoma women. This initiative petition should be challenged and, if it makes it on the ballot, rejected by Oklahomans like similar measures have been rejected by voters in other states."
If the abortion prohibition is not challenged in court, the Secretary of State would set a 90-day window during which proponents would need to gather the needed signatures of registered voters. If successful, the question could be placed on the November ballot.
Hunter, who refers to himself as an Abolitionist, told Saynsumthn that he is not accepting donations or raising any funds to promote his ballot initiative. When asked what others can do to assist him in his effort, he replied that he would like to, "ask people to pray for the state of Oklahoma that the people would repent of child sacrifice and abortion apathy."
Planned Parenthood letter scheme encourages abortion opponents
Posted in Cecile Richards, Center for Medical Progress with tags Abolish Human Abortion, Abortion, Cecile Richards, Center for Medical Progress, Cheryl Sullenger, Glitter Bomb, letter, Operation Save America, Planned Parenthood, Pledge A picketer, Pro-Life, Rusty Thomas, Todd Bullis on October 15, 2015 by saynsumthn
A new trend of letters signed by Planned Parenthood's president Cecile Richards to opponents of the abortion business has been emerging. Richards apparently has not been busy enough defending her multi-million dollar tax funded organizations' participation in the selling and harvesting of aborted baby parts, she is now busy signing letters to her opponents.
The letters are in response to a donation made to the abortion biz in the name of someone who ardently opposes Planned Parenthood.
But rather than discouraging the recipients, the letters appear to be more of a badge of honor to those they were delivered to. In fact, Saynsumthn obtained the permission of the recipients, to published them below.
Each letter states the following:
Dear [ name]
Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) is pleased to let you know that a generous and thoughtful contribution has been made in your honor by: [name on contributor]
We send our warmest regards.
Cecile Richards,
president, PPFA.
Cheryl Sullenger, Operation Rescue's Senior Vice President, was the recipient of one of the thank you letters.
"It just re-emphasized to me how desperate Cecile Richards and Planned Parenthood are and how effective our work has been," Sullenger told Live Action News.
Operation Rescue has in the forefront of the effort to expose Planned Parenthood. Their president, Troy Newman sits on the board of the Center for Medical Progress credited for the multi-year investigation uncovering the abortion giant's baby harvesting operation.
Another recipient was Rusty Thomas, National Director of Operation Save America (OSA).
He told Saynsumthn that he suspects he received the letter because OSA has concentrated a lot on Planned Parenthood since the Center for Medical Progress videos uncovered their baby harvesting atrocities.
A letter was also sent to an activist from Abolish Human Abortion, a group which opposes abortion but does not refer to themselves a pro-life.
Todd Bullis told this blogger that he assumes the person who made a Planned Parenthood contribution in his name must of thought it would bother him, which it did not.
There seems to be no legitimate reason to contribute to Planned Parenthood in the name of someone who opposes abortion, unless of course, the donor wants help Cecile Richards continue to earn her hefty six digit salary.
The letters follow another trend of odd behavior where abortion advocates mailed glitter bombs to pro-life groups in a failed attempt to discourage them.
The concept mirrors ongoing pro-abortion fundraising efforts such as "pledge a picketer," and "adopt and anti," to try and discourage 40 Days for Life and other groups from going to abortion clinics to offer help to women.
But, as much as Planned Parenthood's latest scheme seems geared toward dissuading activists from opposing abortion, they are having the opposite effect. Opponents of Planned Parenthood say that they are more determined than ever to topple the industry which slaughters children and sells their parts for research. And, some even find the ridiculous letters signed by Cecile Richards encouraging.
"If we were ineffective, she wouldn't bother to try play ridiculous mind games with us. It's encouraging!" Sullenger stated.
Pro-life e-book analyzes recent debate with AHA
Posted in AHA, Incrementalist with tags Abolish Human Abortion, AHA, Clinton Wilcox, debate, Don Cooper, Dr. Michael New, e-book, gregg cunningham, immediatism, incrementalism, Jill Stanek, Jonathon Van Maren, Pro-Life, Scott Klusendorf, Steve Hays, T Russell Hunter on June 2, 2015 by saynsumthn
It began with a debate between the strategy of immediatism vs. incrementalism in ending abortion.
It was held this past April in Tulsa between pro-lifer Gregg Cunningham of the Center for Bioethical Reform and T. Russell Hunter a founder of the abolitionist group Abolish Human Abortion (AHA).
After a series of articles about the debate a group of pro-life leaders have decided to publish an e-book detailing their thoughts addressing issues brought up during the debate.
"Abolition of Reason: Pro-life apologists deconstruct 'Immediatist' ideology" was written by pro-life blogger Jill Stanek, Steve Hays of Triablogue, Scott Klusendorf of Life Training Institute, Dr. Michael New of the Charlotte Lozier Institute, Jonathon Van Maren of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, and Clinton Wilcox also of LTI.
Pro-lifers are in their rights to analyze the debate and they are not alone.
Russell Hunter has vowed that Abolitionists will produce their own response, calling the various posts "misinformation and distractions":
Jill Stanek opens the e-book by writing the prologue, where she analyzes Hunter's readiness for the debate, "Hunter came ill-prepared to support his actual premise, that pro-life incrementalism hasn't and doesn't work, and Cunningham quickly disproved Hunter's claim that immediatism is buttressed by historical figures like William Wilberforce, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King, Jr. None of the aforementioned were immediatists in practice. They were incrementalists."
Klusendorf addresses the tone of the aftermath and the way that AHA supporters launched personal attacks following the debate, writing:
an AHA supporter named Toby immediately attributed to her [Jill Stanek] the worst possible motives and all-but damned her to Hell. "Instead of dealing with incrementalism or immediatism on Biblical terms, she chooses to make an idol out of the abortion fight. Her career is more important to her than her soul…"
Adding, "That's not the language of someone eager to engage his critics with thoughtful responses.
It's the rhetoric of a spiritual weirdo with a severe prophet complex. What he can't secure with a syllogism, he'll pick up with a spiritual power play. Indeed, one high-up AHA rep requested that I publicly repent for not posting his link announcing the pending debate. That my Facebook page is mine to post or not post as I please apparently never crossed his mind. The arrogance of such a request is mind-blowing."
Van Maren summarized Hunter's actions after the debate this way, "Hunter took to Facebook immediately to first half-apologize for his performance, but then quickly become snarky and sarcastic again as his supporters assured him that he was, of course, the visionary they all knew him to be."
Adding, "The most mind-boggling post surely goes to the "International Coalition of Abolitionist Societies," who actually posted a fake apology for Gregg Cunningham being "a jerk" and for his so-called "ad hominem attacks." I don't think I've ever seen such a stunning display of immaturity and sour grapes, with the exception of the out-and-out character assassination that the "abolitionists" across social media, in a series of adolescent temper tantrums, have launched against Cunningham, all the while accusing any and all respondents of "slander."
(Note, as pictured above, the ICAS was eventually edited and an apology was issued after pro-lifers criticized the poor sportsmanship of the post.)
But, I also noticed the poor way that AHA responded – addressing it privately with many of their members. After all, it was AHA who repeatedly requested the debate to begin with.
After repeated criticism of the pro-life movement, I noticed how quickly Russell retreated to a martyr complex when the criticism was directed at him:
Back to the e-book.
Hayes addresses the difference between what he describes as the "right message" vs. the "cost of innocent lives."
"With respect to AHA," Hayes states.
"nothing is easier than to take an "uncompromising" stand when it has no chance of happening. In that respect, AHA is like Republicans who are rhetorically pro-life, rhetorically uncompromising. There's no price to pay. No real-world consequences. It's just self-congratulatory talk."
Adding this observation, "On the one hand they set the bar very high. On the other hand, they slide under the bar. The measure of progress isn't consciousness-raising, but the abolition of abortion. By their own oft-repeated sloganeering, that's the only "fruit" that counts. The total abolition of abortion. AHA confuses leaves with fruit. Thus far, AHA is a leafy, but fruitless tree. Lots of leaves, no fruit."
Stanek fires back at Hunter for his relentless accusations that that all pro-lifers wish to do is to "regulate" not end abortion, writing, "It is slander of the worst kind for Hunter to claim the end game for pro-lifers is that abortion be "safe, early, and painless." He knows perfectly well why we pursue incremental efforts."
Wilcox agrees, "Pro-life people want the immediate end to abortion. Incremental legislation is our strategic method for getting there. Planned Parenthood knows this. Pro-choice writers like Katha Pollitt know this (it plays a major theme in her recent book Pro: Reclaiming Abortion Rights ). The only people who don't seem to get that are the self-proclaimed "abolitionists."
Klusendorf piles on, "Hunter never once said how his policy of immediatism plays out in the real world. How, exactly, does it work to insist on the immediate abolition of abortion? Got the votes for that? Here is where Hunter's argument is truly self-sealing. He states that if only all incrementalists would become immediatists, we could take the ax to the root and win.
"So there you have it. When you can't explain how your strategy actually works in the real world, you just fault your opponents for your failure to execute. This reminds me of faith healers who blame the victim for "not having enough faith" when he doesn't immediately recover from a systemic illness…."
Stanek fires back again, "Hunter knew when he launched AHA in 2011 immediatism would take "a long time," and there would be "a long period in which it was impracticable." But he had no safety net prepared for the children from whom he would go on to rashly attempt to remove protections. He had no immediate and workable plan in place to save the children he was pulling the rug out from under.
"To this day, four years later, AHA has no cohesive, wide-ranging plan to save these kids."
Wilcox points out the hypocrisy of AHA's criticism of the pro-life movement writing, "Hunter, while decrying the fact that pro-life organizations fundraise, hypocritically uses the fruits of those organizations' labor."
Case in point….Wilcox states that, "AHA uses images of abortion victims that Cunningham's group has spent millions of dollars to acquire over the years. CBR was the first pro-life organization to compile an archive of broadcast quality video and still photographs."
And then Wilcox addresses accusations by AHA that somehow the pro-life movement fundraising is bad by pointing out that AHA leader, "Don Cooper who holds himself out as AHA's Executive Director, also fundraises. Cooper's organization, named Abolitionists Northwest, made $101,159 in 2013 – $96,645 of which came from "[c]ontributions, gifts, grants, and similar." A point I detail here.
Van Maren questions Hunter's recollection of history, "Although I was well aware of Abolish Human Abortion's selective historical cherry picking and theologically immature underpinnings, I thought Hunter would put up a better fight," he states.
"An honest analysis of history shows us that there are no social reform movements that have ever managed to do away with an injustice in one fell swoop. Hunter's so-called "strategy," to play it fast and loose with the word, has no basis in historical fact and is, for the most part, based on his misunderstanding and in many places misrepresentation of the historical record."
Perhaps the most compelling point in the e-book is the chapter written by Dr. Michael New who details how incrementalism does, in fact, save lives, documentation Hunter was completely ignorant of during the debate.
New's summary reads, "one of the most important reasons why pro-lifers should continue to support incremental pro-life laws is that these laws are effective. Academic research has been published in an impressive range of political science journals, economics journals, and public health journals. These studies have analyzed different types of incremental pro-life laws. They have analyzed data from different states and different time periods. There is a very strong consensus among scholars that incremental pro-life laws have stopped abortions and saved literally thousands of innocent human lives."
You can read and download the e-book here.
Is Abolish Human Abortion (AHA) an Organization?
Posted in AHA with tags 501C3, Abolish Human Abortion, Abolitionist, AHA, Clinton Wilcox, donations, fundriase, Inc., INTERNATIONAL COALITION OF ABOLITIONIST SOCIETIES, Jill Stanek, Pro-Life, raise money, support, T Russell Hunter, The Pro-Life Advocate Network, Toby Harmon, trademark, World Life on May 20, 2015 by saynsumthn
Following a series of posts from pro-life blogger Jill Stanik regarding a recent debate between a member of Abolish Human Abortion (AHA) and a leader in the Pro-life Movement on the best strategy for ending abortion, some issues were raised regarding the use of fundraising by pro-life groups.
In her latest post entitled, "Immediatist vs. Incrementalist" debate analysis, Part VII: So fundraising is wrong?, posted to Jill Stanek's website but written by Clinton Wilcox of the Life Training Institute,the claim is made that Abolish Human Abortion is incorporated, has a for-profit arm through which it sells t-shirts and other wares, and rents office space.
Those who are following this back and forth know that AHA and to a large degree T. Russell Hunter, has been critical of the way pro-life organizations fundraise and pro-lifers had attempted to prove that AHA was being hypocritical, after having done the same themselves.
Jill's latest blog seemed to strike a nerve, you can read it here and follow the discussion on Facebook after Jill posted this and some other information about AHA's organization.
In response, T. Russell Hunter made several statements defending AHA which you can read at Jill Stanek's Facebook page here:
Here Russell says that his grassroots coalition does not have a full blown legal name:
(NOTE: After publishing it was corretly pointed out to me that I misquoted Russell above as not having a full blown legal name – instead of "full blown legal and game." my error.)
Brian Wagnon also weighed in:
A bone of contention seemed to arise when I posted images of Abolish Human Abortion documents that showed they earned $101,000 in 2013, but I will address that particular document later in this blog.
Russell, posting as Thomas Hunter, quickly responded accusing me of "knowing this story" – what story?
Since Russell and then privately Toby Harmon implied that I knew this history of how AHA attempted to form their organization, collected donations, said they were tax exempt, filed for a C3, etc., and then dropped the entire process, I decided to get the full story from their perspective.
I messaged AHA leader, Don Cooper, about the issue, since he is the one everyone seems to point to regarding all the AHA paperwork. Cooper sent me a detailed timeline and gave me full permission to share EVERYTHING he wrote. I will break this down for you from his perspective and from his notes but in the interest of space, I have edited it down slightly, although all the dates and actual events are included, I have only removed certain non essential comments. If you would like to read the entire timeline in full from Cooper, feel free to request it from him.
FOR THE RECORD: Saynsumthn is not publishing this because I think it was wrong to say that AHA was being hypocritical, but, because it is good to get everything on the table and allow individuals to judge for themselves whether AHA supporters are justified in their criticism of the pro-life movement regarding fundraising.
I am grateful to Cooper for his openness regarding salaries and expenditures and he wanted me to know that he gave me as much detail as he could to the best of his recollection.
"It is possible I have some dates slightly off. I did my best to stay objective about everything. It is also possible that my history of "AHA" is not complete but I am pretty sure I got 99.9% of the relevant stuff here, " Don Cooper told Saynsumthn.
Toby Harmon of Abolish Human Abortion also messaged me with his account and has given me permission to publish his statements publicly, so here it goes.
Harmon told me, "Nobody is saying that Don Cooper filled out all of that paperwork on his own without permission from quote/unquote AHA leadership. We are saying that at one time we decided to go the organizational route, filled out paperwork to become a 501C3 and about as it was getting approved as a 501C3 we woke up and said no – we're not going to do this and we cancelled the whole thing."
Harmon continued, "Now Don [Cooper] still fundraises for his local society…but that is not fundraising for AHA. That doesn't mean AHA is an organizational model."
But, not just Cooper's Society, I have located other Abolitionist Societies with donate buttons currently on their pages like this one in Chicago:
And this one in Sumner County:
The Abolitionist Society of El Paso says that they are not a 501c3 organization, but clearly asks for donations online:
But, asking for donations and raising support by the Abolitionist Societies is approved by AHA as seen in this post:
Just, not acceptable for pro-lifers as seen here:
In any event, it is clear from the above statements that Abolish Human Abortion did attempt to form an organization and get a 501C3 which they now say they have backed away from.
Don Cooper has helped me lay out how it transpired:
Timeline of World Life and Abolish Human Abortion (AHA)
According to Cooper's best recollection the Abolish Human Abortion movement was officially founded in February of 2011. At that time, Don still worked for the Center for Bioethical Reform (CBR). He left CBR in May of 2012.
My research shows that AHA's first Facebook post was April of 2011.
A post of the group's blog that same month explained the AHA position thus far:
We have two great objects: We aim to effect the total abolition of human abortion in our culture and put an end to the objectification of women. Our primary target is not women who have had abortions. It is the prevalent misinformation about abortion within our culture which encouraged and allowed them to do so. We are pro-education. We are pro-women We are pro-children We are pro-adoption We will not rest until we have effected its abolition.
July of 2011 post, "Meeting in progress. Looks like 30+. nice."
During this time, AHA was not opposed to support from Catholics or pro-life people.
This September 2011 post brags that they received a "boost" from pro-life leader Bryan Kemper.
Another post encourages supporters to "like" a pro-life Facebook page:
According to Cooper, by May of 2012, he and Todd Bullis began World Life.
"World Life is a DBA while the organization's official name is: The Pro-Life Advocate Network (PLAN)," Cooper stated.
In July of 2012 Cooper says that World Life completed and submitted the application to the IRS for 501C3 non-profit status.
Cooper said that World Life's first big project was "Pro-Life Book" which was intended to be a tool to help activate and support Christians to get into the fight.
At the time, I recall many pro-lifers joining Pro-life Book as an alternative to YouTube which was known to censor pro-life vids.
Cooper said that by May/June of 2012 the supporters who had been supporting him as a pro-life worker at CBR began supporting him by giving to World Life, mostly friends and family, Cooper said.
In the summer and fall of 2012 – Todd Bullis began interacting with abolitionists in Norman, OK, according to Cooper, and by November 2012 – they attend the first "AHA" (abolitionist) conference held in Norman, OK., where Don said that he became fully convinced that incrementalism is wrong and immediatism was correct.
Cooper says that although he considered himself an Abolitionist he still did work with pro-life groups like Created Equal and that by December of 2012 AHA and WorldLife worked together, even handing out literature at a Jumbtron event in San Francisco with Created Equal.
CREATING AN AHA ORGANIZATION:
Abolish Human Abortion was actively asking for donations and support as confirmed by these screen grabs.
I attempted to locate some of these on the Facebook page, but could not find them. I am not saying they were scrubbed, just that I was unable to locate them.
By July of 2012, it was suggested by a supporter that Abolish Human Abortion obtain a 501C3, to which they replied in this Facebook comment:
"Already on all of that and so much more. We just haven't spent a whol lot of time trying to raise money or seek funders. Necessary stuff, we know …but we want to spread an ideology rightly, and always asking, "what will make most people happy/ bring in the most support" is a poor way to launch an actual movement.
"But, so you know, there are a number of Abolitionist Organizations now being established and they are in the process of seeking 501(C)3 and 501(C)4 statuses".
In a video uploaded by AHA in November of 2012 Russell Hunter describes AHA as an ideology and not an organization.
"Yes you're sitting in a building, yes we have an office, we have a store, we have a Facebook page, we have a – a whole lot of things – a blog – all that kind of stuff," Russell says.
Cooper had this to say about the creation of an Abolish Human Abortion Organization:
February 2013 – April 2013: While there is concern about the dangers or creating an organization that could hinder the movement, there is a consensus that the time is right for the movement to have an organizational tool in the background, a 501C3 organization that would be used to fund larger projects, providing materials to Abolitionist Societies in need, a restoration of the abolitionist periodical called "The Liberator", and for the few people who would be working full-time on such projects. The idea is proposed to have a "monthly subscription" to the Liberator which would help provide funds for the above items.
In May of 2013, Abolish Human Abortion posts this on their Facebook page:
"God has blessed this movement in unimaginable ways and we are confident that He will continue to do so through the giving of faithful abolitionists around the world. If you would like to make a tax-deductible donation to AHA (of any size), please follow this link, or click the Support Abolition button across the top of our page: https://dlq4.donatelinq.net/qv10/Donation.aspx…"
Adding this in the comments:
"AHA has now become a separate organizational entity from AHAgear which is owned and operated as an LLC by The Basileian Group. AHAgear is officially licensed by the International Coalition of Abolitionist Societies to use and sell abolitionist gear and resources featuring the abolitionist AHA symbol. But others can use it by permission of ICAS who holds the trademark."
This screen grab, also from May shows more:
Cooper said that they had, "long discussions" about what to name the abolitionist C3 organization, "Because "Abolish Human Abortion" has been the name of the movement, there is a hesitancy to use this name for the organization," Cooper said.
"However after many discussions and lots of prayer, it is decided that really the name of the movement is the "abolitionist movement" and that the organization name could be "Abolish Human Abortion". It is also recommended by some that since "Abolish Human Abortion" is already a recognized name with history, and that many people already think of it as an organization, that it would make sense to use that inertia in getting the organization going," Cooper said.
Cooper explained that by June of 2013 World Life's 501C3 status has not yet been granted by the IRS but was still pending, and according to officials is many months behind.
At this point Cooper said that. "It is then suggested and agreed on that rather than submit a new 501C3 application, we will rename the organization "World Life" to "Abolish Human Abortion". This would allow us to not have to submit a new application for C3 status which would take longer."
Cooper said that he saw the decision as, "a sort of official marrying of World Life and AHA. AHA gives its name to World Life and World Life is willing to change the name. The board members agree to this and the name change is submitted to the state of Washington and to the IRS."
In June of 2013 the Liberator subscription idea and C3 organization is announced at the "Wake Up Church" conference in Norman, OK.
The following screen grabs from AHA's website back up what Cooper says. The pages where these appeared on their websites or online have been removed as best as I can tell:
According to Cooper, the AHA wanted the message to be that, "the priority of the abolitionist should be to support financially the work locally in their own community. That each abolitionist should be doing all they can in a daily and consistent manner in their own city. Then after that they should consider if they want to donate to the C3 in support of the organization goals which included the Liberator subscription."
He said that some abolitionist liked the idea while others opposed it adamantly.
"Some are adamantly opposed to have a C3 status organization as they saw it as a compromise with the government possibly restricting abolitionists. With that the plan continued, " he explained.
In July-August 2013 Don said that he, Russell and Toby talked about how to promote The Liberator subscription idea and some abolitionists sign up to subscribe to The Liberator. But that by September their efforts seemed slow and eventually stalled. He said that by this point there were about 50-70 subscribers who are giving on average about $30 per month.
"The support to produce The Liberator is not sufficient to do so. And it seems that the efforts to build that support is interrupting other work that needs to be done," Cooper said.
According to Cooper, by November 2013 AHA members again discuss whether they should continue their pursuit of the organization tool as the IRS continues to stall in granting the C3 status, and they feel they are falling into that dark hole of government stalling.
Then, by December 2013, as best as Cooper can recall, he says that Russell Hunter announced that he is convinced that the organization model is detrimental to the abolitionist movement and that Toby felt the same way.
This might explain this post around the same time- condemning pro-lifers who have a 501C3:
Here is Cooper's recollection:
"Russell announces to the other leaders that if we maintain "Abolish Human Abortion" as an organization, that he could not with a clear conscience remain part of the organization. He would remain an abolitionist but not a part of the organization. The other leaders agree that they do not see pursuing the furtherance of the organization as a good thing."
Cooper told me that he was reluctant to accept this conclusion but eventually realized that this is what must be done for the betterment of the movement.
This may explain a document I located online where Abolish Human Abortion, in 2014, appears to have changed to Abolitionists Northwest with $101,159 in "total revenue" by year end 2013.
Don Cooper signed the document as Abolish Human Abortion's "executive director".
Cooper explained that, at the time, they did have staff which received salaries.
At the end of 2013 Russell sent this end of the year message denouncing how typical 501C3 organizations try to raise money at this time of the year and he says that AHA is not a 501C3:
Russell speaking for AHA which is not an organization according to them, makes this year-end fundraising appeal asking AHA supporters not to write a check to AHA, but to send support to local abolitionist groups.
"But, we would like to make a year end fundraising appeal, but not for ourselves," Hunter states.
"We are not asking you to write an end-of-the-year check to AHA. But, we would like to take the time to ask you to look around within the Abolitionist movement, take stock of the people that you've been getting to know, from Facebook or e-mail or YouTube, and watching as they do the work of abolitionism, and, ask yourself if someone you know has a need…who may have needs and God may have blessed you with the ability to help them this Holiday season," Hunter states.
HOW WAS THE MONEY SPENT?
"During the year 2013 Russell and Toby received a small amount of financial support through the abolitionists who had voluntarily signed up as monthly subscribers to the Liberator," Cooper said.
Cooper was very forthright with me in explaining how the funds he collected in the documents listed above were spent. Although, he does not break down every penny, he seemed willing to release salary information paid to AHA staff during that time.
The list below explains how the salaries break down and Cooper said he has verified this with his accountant:
Russell Hunter
2013-Gross Pay=$13,652.10
2013-Employer Taxes=$1,359.43
2013-Total Cost=$15,011.53
Note "Employer Taxes" is what the organization is required to pay to the government. The Gross Pay is before the employee taxes of course
Toby Harmon
2013-Gross Pay=$5,469
2013-Employer Taxes=$560.57
2013-Total Cost=$6,029.57
Cooper wrote this explanation to me regarding his personal salary, "My gross pay for 2013 is on the 990 and it was $40K."
Cooper explains the money they collected further:
"The year-end total of donations for 2013 is just over $101K. This is the combined donation of the new abolitionist donors and the supporters that Don had when World Life had begun. All of this support was used to help support full-time and part time staff people: Don Cooper, Russell Hunter, Toby Harmon, Sarah Cleveland, and an accountant. Other expenses were for the Jumbotron in San Francisco which World Life/AHA funded all other expenses except the Jumbotron rental. There was also three different conferences in 2013 (two in Norman and one in Portland, OR). Website and Internet expenses also part of that cost. There were also some donations to other non-profits who helped directly or indirectly put on the Jumbotron project (Created Equal, Abort73, Life Legal Defense Foundation)."
Cooper said that by January 2014 – February 2014 when the consensus was made to abandon the organization model, he decided that he did not want to abandon the C3 he started as "World Life", and he began the process to change the name again.
"Upon the counsel of the attorney hired to deal with IRS delay, it is decided that the name change should not be submitted until after the C3 status is granted," Cooper said.
According to Cooper he also discussed, "with Russell and Toby about how to handle cancelling the merchant account handling the abolitionist donations. It is decided that Toby and Russell will handle letting the abolitionist supporters know what is going on then we will cancel merchant account. It is decided to do this all in an orderly and linear manner to not create problems with the merchant account and cause problems with IRS, bank or state of Washington where organization is registered."
Cooper then lays out this timeline regarding the name Abolish Human Abortion:
April 2014 – Merchant account is cancelled.
May 2014 – Name change paperwork is submitted to state of Washington. "Abolitionists Northwest" is the new name of the organization Don is keeping. The name "World Life" remains as the primary DBA for the organization. This group continues to help fund Don Cooper as a full –time abolitionist but also fund projects and materials such as signs and literature for public outreaches. Don's work as an abolitionist continues both locally in the Portland area and nationally helping other abolitionists and abolitionist societies to do the work of abolition. Don's annual income through World Life for 2014 was just over $20K. World Life's total annual gifts for 2014 were just over $60K.
June 2014 – State of Washington recognizes the name change to "Abolitionists Northwest". After this, the name change to the IRS was submitted.
June/July 2014 – Name change from IRS official.
At this time, Cooper said that "Abolitionists Northwest"/"World Life" continues to operate today with Don Cooper as President. Todd Bullis is a member of the board of directors and the organization is unashamed to call itself an abolitionist organization.
Cooper told me that, although he does not oppose fundraising he does not make it a priority.
"The only fundraising activity that Todd and I did was to travel to Orlando together and speak to some friends there who had in the past made major gifts to pro-life work. As you know, Todd has had his business a long time and that is his source of income along what his wife earns. Todd does support Toby and Russ the best he can but I am not sure how much that is," he explained.
"The closest thing to fundraising that Russ and I did is described above. We attempted to make a few videos to explain the need and how people could help. We posted a donation page on the World Life website. I believe it was on the AHA site and FB page too. A link to the monthly donation page."
You have seen with this blog why Russell and others within AHA make the claim they are not an organization, at least under the name, "Abolish Human Abortion."
The name INTERNATIONAL COALITION OF ABOLITIONIST SOCIETIES, INC., however is listed as a Domestic Not For Profit Corporation by the Oklahoma Secretary of State, as Jill's blog pointed out.
ICAS has also trademarked the logo for AHA:
As for how T. Russell Hunter raises his support, I have no clue despite this statement he posted to Jill's Facebook page, "I would totally let you look at all my finances Alexandra. How do I do that? Perhaps Carole is already on the job. Maybe she can track my financials down and write a blog about them in hopes of keeping people from reading Abolishhumanabortion.com or getting involved with the work of abolition in their local area."
( NOTE: Prior to publishing this blog I sent a private message to Russell on Facebook asking if he wanted to explain how he raised support – since he was grilled about that online. He never replied. Then, hours after publishing, I came across Hunter's response – posted on Facebook here, where, Russell, posting as Thomas Hunter, wrote:
"As for how my wife and I managed to pay our mortgage, feed ourselves and our kids, we adopt what is known as the "George Muller Plan" and rely on the Spirit of God acting through His people to support us as missionaries living in a culture of death. I am also able to withdraw funds from my investments in the AHAgear store but cannot take a full salary for the design work or writing or advertising etc work done on behalf of the gear store. If I did that, or Toby or Matt did that, AHAgear would not be able to afford to print 24 page pamphlets and sell them for a quarter a piece and see them distributed to hundreds of thousands of people all over the world every year."
In closing, Cooper posted this on Jill's Facebook page, "We [AHA] are not saying that giving the money that God has given you to steward is a bad thing. We are not saying that receiving charitable gifts is a bad thing in and of itself. But it is the abuses of that which are bad. If someone asking for the money is being a bad steward of it or if someone giving the money is doing so and believing that is all they need to do when God would have them do so much more, then that is bad. And truth be told, I think many of us who have worked in the PLM and in particular in fundraising activities, like I know I have, know that this goes on."
It was my impression that Don and Toby wanted to review this blog post before it published, but upon further investigation I see that they did not make a formal request to that end. So, in full disclosure, I want to go on record that I have not allowed them to proof this post ahead of time. I have, however, dealt very fairly with them regarding this issue by allowing them their say on this blog. They are free to post comments below to make corrections.
I believe that I am first a Christian and as such I should go the extra mile for my brothers and sisters. I have been extremely saddened and sometimes disgusted by the inaccuracies I have read posted by people claiming to be Abolish Human Abortion – abolitionists- with regard to history within the pro-life movement that I have personally witnessed.
It is my personal view, that while AHA members demand that we check our facts with them, they are not doing the same thing in many cases.
I want to thank Don Cooper for being cordial enough to respond to this request for clarification.
The issue of fundraising was originally brought up by AHA people and I would expect that it will continue to be.
I, for one, do not have any issues one way or the other whether it is AHA or pro-life groups. People are free to investigate the groups they contribute to and to give as they feel led by the Lord to do so. To me, it is not the business of T. Russell Hunter or AHA supporters to question everyone's motives.
And, that, for what it is worth, is my opinion.
The blog is entitled, Is Abolish Human Abortion an organization?
Saynsumthn is not taking a position against what others have documented, given the documentation was accurate. This post is intended to show brotherly charity that we should show one to another by allowing AHA to clarify their position but does not render them out of the range of criticism on this topic from my point of view.
As they say on Fox News, we report – you decide.
Feel free to weigh in by leaving your comments below.
After the Pro-life vs. Abolish Human Abortion debate
Posted in AHA, Jill Stanek with tags Abolish Human Abortion, AHA, Center for Bioethical Reform, debate, gregg cunningham, ICAS, International Coalition of Abolitionists Societies, Jill Stanek, Jonathon Van Maren, Pro-Life, Scott Klusendorf, T Russell Hunter on May 5, 2015 by saynsumthn
In March of 2014, Abolish Human Abortion (AHA) spokesperson, T Russell Hunter sent out a plea for a pro-life leader to engage AHA in a debate.
At the time, T. Russell Hunter stated in part:
I am looking for someone in the Pro-Life Movement to engage me in a public forum and friendly debate regarding the morality and effectuality of fighting abortion by pragmatically focusing on the passage of 20 week (fetal pain) abortion bans. I would argue for the abolitionist position–that all people who are opposed to abortion ought to unify around abolishing all forms of intentional prenatal destruction regardless of the age of the human being in question–and my opponent could argue for the pro life establishment's position that we should focus our time and energy on regulating abortion while it remains legal and seek incremental gains against it.
After repeated requests, Gregg Cunningham took the AHA challenge and the official debate took place the end of April 2015.
After the debate, the analyzing began.
On the International Coalition of Abolitionists Societies which sponsored the event, the chest pounding was loud as they tried to say that Gregg conceded the debate:
Then this post appeared on the event page:
Shortly after several pro-lifers called them out, to their credit ICAS issued this apology:
And ICAS edited the post to read this:
Kudos for both an apology and an edit in the post above.
The debater himself, T Russell Hunter believed that he won- defending himself on Jill Stanek's blog saying that Gregg "mauled himself."
And so did others with AHA:
After the debate, pro-life bloggers and leaders weighed in. I have not reviewed all the AHA support pages but I would imagine there are a number of reviews posted by their supporters as well.
Scott Klusendorf with Life Training Institute published his analyses here claiming that Gregg Cunningham won hands down:
Scott ends with this statement, "At the end of the day, Hunter picked a fight with a pit bull and got chewed up in his own yard. This was a public-relations disaster for AHA and served to solidify its brand as being more about attacking pro-lifers than stopping abortion. If Hunter wants to fix that, he better stop grinding his ax against pro-lifers—immediately."
Jonathon Van Maren with the Canadian Center for Bio-Ethical Reform published his response here, where he wrote, "The exchange was fiery and extraordinarily lopsided. Since Hunter had months to prepare, I was genuinely surprised at the out-and-out mauling that he received. I knew Gregg Cunningham was a talented debater. Although I was well aware of Abolish Human Abortion's selective historical cherry picking and theologically immature underpinnings, I thought Hunter would put up a better fight."
Saynsumthn even weighed in to a part of the debate here.
On April 28, 2015, Blogger Jill Stanek published her debate prologue here.
Stanek was pretty blunt:
Stanek has written a series of posts she entitled, ""Immediatist vs Incrementalist" debate analysis"
Stanek may not be done yet.
In response to Stanek's "series" Abolish Human Abortion and their leaders have let loose posting several times about Stanek since the debate:

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Contagious I/O
Confectionery brand offers cash prizes to those who complete tediously repetitive mobile game to boost sales in the lead up to Chinese New Year
Confectionery brand Skittles has created a mobile game on the popular app WeChat to encourage sales and boost salience of its candy before Chinese New Year.
The game was inspired by the Chinese tradition of gifting red envelopes (known as 'hongbao') that contain money to loved ones over the holiday period. In recent years, it has been possible to digitally gift hongbao, which can be opened by a single tap on the social media platform WeChat.
Aligning with this behaviour, Skittles and agency DDB China Group Shanghai & Guangzhou created The Most Frustrating Red Packet – digital hongbaos that required 50,000 consecutive taps to open. Skittles released one digital red packet per day for five days on WeChat. Every day, the participant who reached 50,000 taps in the fastest time would win ¥49,999 ($7,750).
To play, people had to purchase hongbao-themed packs of Skittles in-store that contained a unique QR code. A quick scan of the QR code opened a WeChat mini program where the game was hosted.
Across the five-day campaign, which occurred two weeks before the start of Chinese New Year, the quickest time was recorded at one hour, 52 minutes, and 29 seconds. To prevent cheating, the game randomly issued identification tests to ensure a human was tapping and not an automated machine.
Skittles teased the campaign through influencers to generate buzz on social media. This was then followed by a TVC that featured two friends sitting on a sofa participating in the competition. Both players age drastically while humorously discussing how much of a waste of time the game is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CdhxPC_iD8
Experience / Skittles participatory game encourages people to spend time with the brand while strengthening its association with fun and entertainment. Skittles has consistently linked itself with 'fun' to make its brand seem more human and relatable, which you can read more about in our brand spotlight here. Certainly, the mobile game is an extension of this but it also manages to cut through the brand noise around Chinese New Year and engage audiences with an activity. Awing Chen, executive creative director of DDB Guangzhou & Shanghai, summed it up like this: 'Why would people spend time on advertisements at this time of year when there are so many other interesting things to do? We needed to let the brand speak in a very human way and interact with consumers in an engaging manner that offers a unique and fun experience.'
Premeditated campaigns / Although the public holiday is only officially a week-long (12 Feb – 18 Feb), Chinese New Year celebrations often last up to 16 days with millions of people travelling from the city to the countryside to be with their families. According to the Chinese Ministry of Commerce, $149bn was spent on shopping, restaurants, and activities around Chinese New Year in 2019. Also, according to a 2019 survey by research firm iiMedia, 53.3% of respondents said that casual snacks are the most indispensable goods during the festival period. Given the opportunity here, Skittles has chosen to activate several weeks in advance of Chinese New Year to keep the brand top of mind leading up to the important sales period and consumption occasion.
Distinctive assets / Skittles has a history of activating during Chinese New Year: in 2019 the brand created a film featuring Chinese celebrity Yibo Wang engaging in a rap battle with his uncle who asks awkward and intimate questions about his personal life (which is common during the holiday period). In 2018, Skittles leveraged this same insight but positioned its packets of sweets as a solution to awkward personal questions. Each pouch included fun and humorous answers to questions such as 'why are you single?' or 'when are you having children?'.
According to Byron Sharp in his book How Brands Grow, marketers need to create mental availability for their goods and reinforce memory structures through distinctive assets to grow their brands. Therefore, The Most Frustrating Red Packet is doubly effective for Skittles, as it reinforces its own distinctive red pouch while at the same time builds associations with the hongbao tradition which is at the centre of conversations around the holiday.
Game on / To increase engagement, awareness and loyalty, many a brand has launched apps and used gamification techniques (competition, scoring systems, and incentives) to appeal to its audience. Unsurprisingly, we've seen the efficacy of gamification time and time again. For example, Verizon Wireless boosted browsing time by 30% among half its users by using points and badges to gamify its website. And, Ford Motors increased sales by more than $8m and boosted Facebook likes by 600% with gamified content. Meanwhile, in Brazil, Fanta's mobile game (that required people to shout the brand's name into their phone to control the character) resulted in over 464,000 players continuously saying 'Fanta' for 290,000 minutes.
In short, by appealing to people's love of rewards, levelling up and competition through gamification, Skittles can better engage its target audience, extend the interaction it has with the consumer and consequently be more likely to remain top-of-mind at a key consumption occasion.
Strategist's Digest: What makes people share ads? /
Florist creates 'bouquets for men' for mental health campaign /
The strategy behind Pfizer/BioNTech's Because Of This vaccine ads /
Lego makes music-video app for kids too young for TikTok /
Strategist's Digest: Do people like it when brands banter on Twitter? /


One Community Church is a Christian community seeking to explore issues of faith and life in ways that make sense in contemporary Australia.
Sharing our stories isn't only powerful—it's essential. In Acts, Jesus sends his followers out into the world to bear witness to the ways in which they've seen God at work both in their lives and in the world around them.
From time to time, we get a glimpse of a story that we can't help but try to uncover. Within a passing conversation emerges a piece of a story so compelling that we know we need to learn more.


The Great North Neonatal Biobank has a large collection of samples from pre-term or newborn babies with complex health needs.
The neonatal biobank is a resource of 'salvaged' specimens including stool, urine, blood (serum and cellular components), and other 'waste' samples from preterm and sick infants. We hope that these samples will help us improve the health of babies born preterm or sick. Our specific focus is on infection, bowel problems and longer term health outcomes, and we use a variety of new and advancing techniques designed to progress understanding and disease prevention and treatment.


text:
package net.sf.mmm.client.ui.api.attribute;

/**
 * This interface gives read and write access to the {@link #isEditable() editable} attribute of an object.
 *
 * @see AttributeReadEditable
 *
 * @author Joerg Hohwiller (hohwille at users.sourceforge.net)
 * @since 1.0.0
 */
public abstract interface AttributeWriteEditable extends AttributeReadEditable {

  /**
   * This method set the {@link #isEditable() editable} status.
   *
   * @param editableFlag if true the object will become editable, if false the
   *        object will become un-editable.
   */
  void setEditable(boolean editableFlag);

}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Overall Review of Global Automotive Evaporator Market gives detail information in the conclusion period span. General Market Insights brings out historical, existing, and forecast estimations of the automotive evaporator industry till 2025. The assessment of automotive evaporator market contains the descriptions of the market dynamics, environmental analysis, industry prospects, value chain, market volume, status, and technological upgrades. Global automotive evaporator industry insights regarding the market share in a document format are delivered unique insights of market dynamics, market volume, value chain, industry prospects, environmental analysis, technological upgrades and status in this research report. To give humongous transparency on the automotive evaporator market size, offers, and development rate the logical review is planned for crosswise over various areas. The all-level routine of the automotive evaporator market is provided for you to start with the meaning of this market dynamics.
Global automotive evaporator Market study relevant to classifies, services, products, applications, and various demanding geographical areas are properly collected in the report. Also for learning the current market potential for automotive evaporator from the global scenario, the research delves into the competitive landscape and development arena exhibited by the main geographical areas. The automotive evaporator industry highlights the market essentials, regional market, economic growth, and market competitors joined with their market share.
Top Business Players which broadly summarized in this report.All these organizations are predictable to international production of automotive evaporator through 2023.
Which are those factors due to which the automotive evaporator Market keeps going?
Which new technologies are covered and What are the major applications are in the Global Automotive Evaporator Market?
Is there any scope for automotive evaporator market in upcoming years?
Which will be the target audience of the automotive evaporator industry?
What is the perspective on the growth of the automotive evaporator industry?
Legislative Summary and Objectives of automotive evaporator.
Dynamics of the automotive evaporator industry.


<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> Logo and T-shirt-Sun Yat-sen Univ.
The team logo itself is transformed from the traditional radiation symbol, twisted into the shape of a surface of an invisible ball. Judging from the appearance, the eyeball-look symbol not only represents the main issue we want to talk about, indicating the nuclear accident happened in Japan, but also reflects the image of the nuclear-detecting E.colis. The ball also holds the shape like a little flower from a particular angle, and tells the story after cleaning the radioactive area, where the flowers blossom again.
Using the gradient from blue to green, the logo shows its own life like the oceans and the lands. The year and the name of our team is added beneth the symbol.
The official clothes of our team also take the radiation symbol as a modle, but this time, we only take a small part, a sector, out of it, copying and piling it/them as fish scale. Then, a vivid fish jump out of the paper, and dives into the cloths, swimming upwards and traveling from back to front, with the colors indicating passion and enthusiasm. The team logo also printed on the clothes for visual identification.
The official logo of the team SYSU-China in iGEM 2011.
The original design of the team clothes of SYSU-China team.


text:
define([
    'knockout',
    'atlas-state',
    'text!./role-details.html',
    'pages/Page',
    'utils/AutoBind',
    'utils/CommonUtils',
    'utils/Clipboard',
    'pages/configuration/roles/roleJsonParser',
    'services/role',
    'lodash',
    'assets/ohdsi.util',
    'services/User',
    'services/AuthAPI',
    'services/file',
    'databindings',
    'components/ac-access-denied',
    'less!./role-details.less',
    'components/heading',
    './components/users',
    './components/permissions',
    './components/utilities',
    'components/tabs'

], function (
    ko,
    sharedState,
    view,
    Page,
    AutoBind,
    commonUtils,
    Clipboard,
    roleJsonParser,
    roleService,
    _,
    ohdsiUtils,
    userService,
    authApi,
    fileService,
) {
    const defaultRoleName = "New Role";

    class RoleDetails extends AutoBind(Clipboard(Page)) {
        constructor(params) {
            super(params);

            this.currentTab = ko.observable('users');

            this.roleId = ko.observable();
            this.roleName = ko.observable();
            this.roles = sharedState.roles;
            this.users = sharedState.users;
            this.userItems = ko.observableArray();
            this.existingRoles = ko.observableArray();
            this.roleUserIds = [];
            this.permissions = ko.observableArray();
            this.permissionItems = ko.observableArray();
            this.rolePermissionIds = [];

            this.isNewRole = ko.pureComputed(() => this.roleId() === 0);

            this.roleCaption = ko.computed(() => this.isNewRole() ? ko.i18n('const.newEntityNames.role', 'New Role')() : ko.i18nformat('configuration.roles.roleTitle', 'Role #<%=id%>', {id: this.roleId()}));

            this.isAuthenticated = authApi.isAuthenticated;
            this.canReadRoles = ko.pureComputed(() => this.isAuthenticated() && authApi.isPermittedReadRoles());
            this.canReadRole = ko.pureComputed(() =>
                this.isAuthenticated() &&
                this.isNewRole()
                    ? authApi.isPermittedCreateRole()
                    : authApi.isPermittedReadRole(this.roleId()));
            this.canEditRole = ko.pureComputed(() =>
                this.isAuthenticated() &&
                this.isNewRole()
                    ? authApi.isPermittedCreateRole()
                    : authApi.isPermittedEditRole(this.roleId()));
            this.canEditRoleUsers = ko.pureComputed(() => this.isAuthenticated() && (this.isNewRole() || authApi.isPermittedEditRoleUsers(this.roleId())));
            this.canEditRolePermissions = ko.pureComputed(() => this.isAuthenticated() && (this.isNewRole() || authApi.isPermittedEditRolePermissions(this.roleId())));
            this.hasAccess = ko.pureComputed(() => this.canReadRole());
            this.canDelete = ko.pureComputed(() => this.isAuthenticated() && this.roleId() && authApi.isPermittedDeleteRole(this.roleId()));
            this.canSave = ko.pureComputed(() => (this.canEditRole() || this.canEditRoleUsers() || this.canEditRolePermissions()) && this.roleName());
            this.canCreate = authApi.isPermittedCreateRole;

            this.areUsersSelected = ko.pureComputed(() => {
                return !!this.userItems().find(user => user.isRoleUser());
            });

            this.loading = ko.observable();
            this.dirtyFlag = ko.observable(new ohdsiUtils.dirtyFlag({
                role: this.roleName,
                users: this.userItems,
                permissions: this.permissionItems
            }));
            this.roleDirtyFlag = ko.observable(new ohdsiUtils.dirtyFlag({
                role: this.roleName
            }));

            this.initializeParamsForTabs(params);

        }

        initializeParamsForTabs(params) {
            this.componentParams = params;

            this.componentParams.isNewRole = this.isNewRole;
            this.componentParams.roleId = this.roleId;
            this.componentParams.roleName = this.roleName;
            this.componentParams.roles = this.existingRoles;

            this.componentParams.userItems = this.userItems;
            this.componentParams.permissionItems = this.permissionItems;
            this.componentParams.exportJson = this.exportJson;
            this.componentParams.permissions = this.permissions;
            this.componentParams.save = this.save;

            this.componentParams.dirtyFlag = this.dirtyFlag;
            this.componentParams.canReadRole = this.canReadRole;
            this.componentParams.canReadRoles = this.canReadRoles;
            this.componentParams.canEditRole = this.canEditRole;
            this.componentParams.canEditRoleUsers = this.canEditRoleUsers;
            this.componentParams.canEditRolePermissions = this.canEditRolePermissions;
        }

        onRouterParamsChanged({roleId}) {
            if (this.hasAccess()) {
                this.roleId(roleId);
                this.updateRole();
            }
        }

        updateUserItems() {
            const userItems = [];
            this.users().forEach((user) => {
                const isRoleUser = this.roleUserIds.indexOf(user.id) >= 0;
                if (this.canEditRoleUsers() || isRoleUser) {
                    userItems.push({
                        id: user.id,
                        login: user.login,
                        isRoleUser: ko.observable(isRoleUser),
                    });
                }
            });
            userItems.sort(function (a, b) {
                return b.isRoleUser() - a.isRoleUser();
            })
            this.userItems(userItems);
        }

        updatePermissionItems() {
            const permissionItems = [];
            this.permissions().forEach((permission) => {
                const isRolePermission = this.rolePermissionIds.indexOf(permission.id) >= 0;
                if (this.canEditRolePermissions() || isRolePermission) {
                    permissionItems.push({
                        id: permission.id,
                        permission: ko.observable(permission.permission),
                        description: ko.observable(permission.description),
                        isRolePermission: ko.observable(isRolePermission)
                    });
                }
            });
            permissionItems.sort(function (a, b) {
                return b.isRolePermission() - a.isRolePermission();
            });
            this.permissionItems(permissionItems);
        }

        getPermissionsList() {
            return this.permissionItems()
                .filter(permission => permission.isRolePermission());
        }

        getUsersList() {
            return this.userItems()
                .filter(user => user.isRoleUser());
        }

        exportJson() {
            return {
                role: this.roleName(),
                permissions: this.getPermissionsList().map(p => ({ id: p.permission() })),
                users: this.getUsersList().map(u => ({ id: u.login })),
            };
        }

        export() {
            fileService.saveAsJson(this.exportJson());
        }

        close() {
            commonUtils.routeTo("/roles");
        }

        async getRole() {
            const role = await roleService.load(this.roleId());
            this.currentRole = role;
            this.roleName(role.role);
        }

        async getRoleUsers() {
            const roleUsers = await roleService.getRoleUsers(this.roleId());
            roleUsers.forEach((user) => {
                this.roleUserIds.push(user.id);
            });
        }

        async getExistingUsers() {
            if (!this.users() || this.users().length == 0) {
                const users = await userService.getUsers();
                this.users(users);
            }
        }

        async getExistingRoles() {
            const roles = await roleService.getList();
            this.existingRoles(roles);
        }

        async getExistingPermissions() {
            if (!this.permissions() || this.permissions().length == 0) {
                const permissions = await roleService.getPermissions();
                this.permissions(permissions);
            }
        }

        async getRolePermissions() {
            const rolePermissions = await roleService.getRolePermissions(this.roleId());
            rolePermissions.forEach((permission) => {
                this.rolePermissionIds.push(permission.id);
            });
        }

        async updateRole() {
            this.loading(true);
            if (this.canReadRoles()) {
                await roleService.updateRoles();
            }
            if (this.isNewRole()) {
                this.roleName(defaultRoleName)
                this.roleUserIds = [];
                this.rolePermissionIds = [];
            } else {
                await this.getRole();
                await this.getRoleUsers();
                await this.getRolePermissions();
            }

            await this.getExistingRoles();
            await this.getExistingUsers();
            await this.getExistingPermissions();

            this.updateUserItems();
            this.updatePermissionItems()

            this.roleDirtyFlag().reset();
            this.dirtyFlag().reset();
            this.loading(false);
        }

        async addRelations(ids, relation) {
            if (ids.length > 0) {
                return await roleService.addRelations(this.roleId(), relation, ids);
            }
        }

        async removeRelations(ids, relation) {
            if (ids.length > 0) {
                return await roleService.removeRelations(this.roleId(), relation, ids);
            }
        }

        async saveRole() {
            if (!this.roleDirtyFlag().isDirty()) {
                return null;
            }

            const data = {
                id: this.roleId(),
                role: this.roleName()
            };
            let role;

            if (this.isNewRole()) {
                role = await roleService.create(data);
            } else {
                role = await roleService.update(data);
            }

            this.roleId(role.id);
        }

        async saveUsers() {
            if (this.canEditRoleUsers()) {
                const currentRoleUserIds = this.getUsersList().map(u => u.id);
                var userIdsToAdd = _.difference(currentRoleUserIds, this.roleUserIds);
                var userIdsToRemove = _.difference(this.roleUserIds, currentRoleUserIds);
                this.roleUserIds = currentRoleUserIds;

                await this.addRelations(userIdsToAdd, 'users');
                await this.removeRelations(userIdsToRemove, 'users');
            }
        }

        async savePermissions() {
            if (this.canEditRolePermissions()) {
                var currentRolePermissionIds = this.getPermissionsList().map(p => p.id);

                var permissionIdsToAdd = _.difference(currentRolePermissionIds, this.rolePermissionIds);
                var permissionIdsToRemove = _.difference(this.rolePermissionIds, currentRolePermissionIds);
                this.rolePermissionIds = currentRolePermissionIds;

                await this.addRelations(permissionIdsToAdd, 'permissions');
                await this.removeRelations(permissionIdsToRemove, 'permissions');
            }
        }

        async save() {
            if (!this.validate()) {
                return;
            }

            this.loading(true);
            const newRole = this.isNewRole();
            await this.saveRole();
            const roles = this.roles();
            if (newRole) {
                roles.push({
                    id: this.roleId(),
                    role: this.roleName()
                });
            } else {
                const updatedRole = roles.find((role) => {
                    return role.id == this.roleId();
                });
                updatedRole.role = this.roleName();
            }
            this.roles(roles);

            await authApi.loadUserInfo();
            await this.saveUsers();
            await this.savePermissions();
            this.roleDirtyFlag().reset();
            this.dirtyFlag().reset();
            commonUtils.routeTo('/role/' + this.roleId());
            this.loading(false);
        }

        validate() {
            if (!this.dirtyFlag().isDirty()) {
                alert("No changes. There is nothing to save");
                return false;
            }
            if (!this.roleName()) {
                alert("Please, specify Role name");
                return false;
            }

            if (this.roleName() == defaultRoleName) {
                alert("Please, change Role name");
                return false;
            }

            // check if such role already exists
            if (this.roles()
                .filter((role) => {
                    return (role.id != this.roleId()
                        && role.role == this.roleName());
                }).length > 0) {
                alert("Role already exists!")
                return false;
            }
            return true;
        }

        async copy() {
            let id;
            try {
                const response = await roleService.create({role: `${this.roleName()} copy`});
                id = response.id;
                await roleService.addRelations(id, 'users', this.roleUserIds);
                await roleService.addRelations(id, 'permissions', this.rolePermissionIds);
            } catch (er) {
                if (!id) {
                    alert("Failed to copy role");
                } else {
                    alert("Failed to fully copy the role");
                }
            }
            await roleService.updateRoles();
            if (id) {
                commonUtils.routeTo(`/role/${id}`);
            }
        }

        async delete() {
            commonUtils.confirmAndDelete({
                message: "Are you sure you want to delete the role?",
                loading: this.loading,
                remove: () => roleService.delete(this.roleId()),
                redirect: () => {
                    const roles = this.roles().filter((role) => {
                        return role.id !== this.roleId();
                    });
                    sharedState.roles(roles);
                    this.close();
                    this.loading(false);
                }
            });
        }
    }

    return commonUtils.build('role-details', RoleDetails, view);
});


text:
Fans back ACPO "three pronged" strategy
Posted on 8th November 2012
This is a story from the FSF archive – the FSF and SD merged to become the FSA in 2019.
A survey carried out by the Football Supporters' Federation has shown that fans have a "relatively positive perception" of the police's role in football. The FSF has also backed the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) "three pronged" policing strategy to tackle football-related disorder.
This strategy includes, firstly, empowering "non-risk" supporters to persuade them that the authorities and government are working on their behalf and, secondly, excluding "risk" supporters.
The third element involves engaging and positively influencing those who, under specific circumstances, might become involved in anti-social behaviour.
Malcolm Clarke, chair of the Football Supporters' Federation, said: "Six thousand fans completed the FSF's policing survey with the majority of fans accepting the police's role in tackling the threat of public disorder.
"Supporters welcomed the police's role in keeping hostile rival fans segregated and providing escorts to and from away venues when necessary and proportionate.
"It is important that all supporters, whatever the category, are policed on the basis of their behaviour and not on the basis of their category. But in general terms fans accept policing that is genuinely focused on 'troublemakers' and is itself proportionate."
ACPO guidance recommends that police football "spotters" should act as a link between police service and the supporter community. The FSF supports this and backs the view that engagement between fans and police can only help enhance relations.
The FSF survey showed that where police forces adhere to ACPO recommendations fans tend to have positive experiences of policing and develop a relatively positive view of the police.
The minority of fans who described negative contact with the police did so in terms that suggested policing inconsistent with ACPO guidance. These experiences are more likely to be found among those who travel regularly to away fixtures.
The FSF said this presented an opportunity for police forces to engage with "away" fans including "hard to reach" or "risk" fans in order to improve dialogue and help police differentiate these groups from "non-risk" supporters.
FSF recommendations:
Fans are treated as key stakeholders in addition to clubs, police and local authorities. This role should be formally acknowledged in ACPO guidance.
A review of restrictions imposed upon fans' freedom of movement to assess their compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Increasing the role of accessible "fan liaison officers" who should be skilled in engagement with both "risk" and "non-risk".
Increased communication via early season match commander match day programme notes or fanzine article's explaining police objectives and introducing the policing team.
Meaningful engagement with home and away supporter groups at pre-match meetings particularly before high-profile games or occasions when the visiting team is a new visitor.
Encourage social media engagement from fans – before, during, and after matches. This should be analysed a fed into future debriefs.
When tactics have to change, such as an unplanned hold back, ensure the rationale for these tactics are communicated to supporters.
Ensure equality of policing between two sets of fans and review how police are used to support stewards inside stadiums, particularly in the enforcement of civil ground regulations.
Supporters should at all times be allowed freedom of movement unless there is a genuine threat to public order. When containment is used communication with those fans should ensure they understand the rationale for this action. Where such tactics are used every effort should be undertaken to ensure the facilitation of fans' legitimate intentions (e.g. access to facilities, differentiation among fans travelling to different locations using differing modes of transport).
The FSF said it hoped to work in partnership with police forces on an ongoing basis to develop and utilise data from an annual fans' survey and support good police practice.
ACPO lead on football policing ACC Andy Holt said: "Over the past two decades there has been steady progress in reducing football-related violence and disorder, with the model of policing football in the UK being replicated internationally.
"The survey published today by the Football Supporters Federation highlights that a key part of the successful model of policing is the specialist role football spotters have in building trust and confidence of football supporters.
"Encouragingly, the survey shows a relatively positive perception of fans in relation to the role of policing football, particularly where forces follow the recommended ACPO guidance which is aimed at excluding risk supporters and ensuring the safety and security of those millions of genuine fans who turn out each week to support their team.
"While the survey sample was small, it has highlighted several areas which will form part of our ongoing dialogue between the service and the FSF. We look forward to seeing the results of the separate stewarding report which the FSF is expected to publish in due course."
You can download the analysis of the 2012 Football Supporters' Federation survey on the policing of football fans in England and Wales here.
Like to have your say on this story? Go to the FSF's Facebook page.
Join the FSF for free today from this link.
The Football Supporters' Federation on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter – @The_FSF
FA publishes strategy for expansion of women's game
The FA's new Women's Professional Game Strategy has committed to working with supporters' organisations as it seeks to grow the game in the years ahead.
Finance / Governance / Politics
Liverpool fans push back against club's trademark move
Posted on 16th August 2019
Liverpool fans say they are alarmed by the club's plans to trademark the name 'Liverpool' in a football context.
Does your MP back The Fans' Manifesto?
Posted on 21st November 2019
Next month many millions of football fans will head out to cast their vote in the General Election. But who'll win your cross in the box?
"Turn your back on VAR" – Wolves fans call for action on VAR
This season saw the introduction of VAR into an English league for the first time and it's fair to say it has not been well received. The FSA will have more work on VAR coming up in future, but for now here's Neil Dady from the Wolves Fans' Parliament talking about the impact it's had on match-going fans…


text:
Image courtesy: Pixabay. For illustration only
Nusaned to set up plastic recycling plant in Rabigh
RIYADH, November 23, 2021
Nusaned Investment Company, a Sabic-owned affiliate, signed an investment agreement through the Nusaned Fund, with the Green Kingdom Industries (GKI) and the Italian company (AMUT) to establish a plant for recycling polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles in Rabigh.
The move adds to the company's commitment to investment in small and medium industrial establishments and contribute to achieving the goals of the Kingdom's Vision 2030, reported Saudi Press Agency (SPA).
The plant will produce recycled PET flakes for food use to serve the local and global markets.
Faisal Al-Bahair, CEO of Nusaned Investment Company, said this new achievement crowns the company's strategic efforts in line with Sabic's goals to support local content and help enhance the kingdom's competitiveness globally.