Talk:Committee of 100 (United Kingdom)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Disambig[edit]

This should be two differnt pages + a disambiguation page.(I don't know how to do this) --JK the unwise 15:05, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since the only pages linking to this one were referring to the nuclear disarmament Committee of 100, I've moved all the Chinese-American stuff to Committee of 100 (America). --Andrew Norman 13:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

George Blake[edit]

Is this the same group whose members (3 of them, anyway) were involved in the prison break of George Blake? If it is, can we have a mention here?

Yes - Blake was sprung by people linked to the Committee of 100. The Committee continued in a rather amorphous fashion throughout the sixties (organising events on Biafra and Vietnam) and its spin-off campaigns went on through the seventies (notably the Family Squatting Campaigns). A loose network of ageing veterans maintain contact to this day. Redrocker 13:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I believe the people who sprung George Blake were Michael Randle and Pat Pottle, whose role was revealed 30 years later. Marshall46 13:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a paragraph mentioning this and referring to the relevant book. TC april 2008

I also mentioned the Greek State Visit and the Spies for Peace. TC april 2008.

I've expanded the section on the Greek state visit of 1963 but removed the claim that the Committee of 100 helped to bring down the right-wing government of Greece. It's meaning was not clear: was it supposed to mean that the C100 helped bring down the Kanellopoulos government in 1967 or the Greek military junta of 1967–74? Neither claim was verifiable. Marshall46 (talk) 08:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Walter was a good friend and an active memeber of the committee but it would not be proper to describe him as one of the committees leading theoreticians. Nor would he want to be so described. So I removed that comment. TC april 2008 Terrychandler (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main article[edit]

I've added some more material: Bertrand Russell's founding statement, which explains what the Committee of 100 was all about; a bit more history; something about organisation; the origin of its name; a list of the original Committee of 100 (though, of course, they weren't actually a committee and some of them did no more than sign their names); and a few lines about its legacy. I've changed "members" to "supporters" because I don't think the Committee of 100 had formal membership. Marshall46 13:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a stub any more. Marshall46 23:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed its not. Good work.--JK the unwise 10:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Committee did have formal members. "Signing their names" was no small thing. They were signing their names to conspiracy and incitement to civil disobedience and many were imprisoned for no more than signing their names in this way. Terry Chandler April 2008

While I hesitate to contradict someone as expert and renowned as Terry Chandler (who made a great contribution to the cause), I must beg to differ to some degree.
In reality, the Committee of 100 did not have formal membership but did have an initial core group (the Committee of 100). Many activists who paid the highest price, in terms of jail sentences, such as Onah Laah (5 years) were not original core members. Many 'core' members never went to jail if I remember right.
I am not aware of anyone going to prison for just being signatories to the mission statement.
The Scottish Committee of 100 did not even have a core group but was very active. Aimulti (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the question is, "What is formal membership?" The minimum definition must be registration as a member, with or without a membership subscription, in which case the signatories of the Committee of 100 can be taken to be members. But were those who sat down in civil disobedience demonstration registered as members anywhere? Marshall46 (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impact[edit]

I have reverted this paragraph:

"The force used by the police surprised many of the demonstrators, which, with the insistence on non-violence and the use by the police of pre-emptive arrests for conspiracy, discouraged many, and support rapidly dwindled. (Frank E. Myers, "Civil Disobedience and Organizational Change: The British Committee of 100", Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 86, No. 1. (Mar., 1971), pp. 92-112) Contemporary research showed that public support for the unilateralist cause actually declined in the period when the Committee of 100 was most active. (W.P.Snyder, The Politics of British Defense Policy, 1945-1962, Ohio University Press, 1964, p.61)"

Myers says that support rapidly dwindled following the early sit-downs and Snyder says that public support for the unilateralist cause fell off during the period of Committee of 100 activism. Terry deleted both and didn't doesn't provide any sources for his replacement statement that non-violent methods had a significant impact. I hesitate to say it, but this looks like POV. Marshall46 (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Terry Chandler has twice removed this passage without explanation: "The force used by the police surprised many of the demonstrators, which, with the insistence on non-violence and the use of pre-emptive arrests for conspiracy, discouraged many, and support dwindled. Contemporary research showed that public support for the unilateralist cause actually declined in the period when the Committee of 100 was most active."
He has also removed the passage following "The Committee extended its campaigns to issues other than nuclear weapons.", i.e.: "Peter Cadogan, an officer of the Committee, said it was "trying to go in 12 directions at once", including campaigning for civil liberties in Greece, against Harold Wilson's failure to produce a promised Vietnam peace initiative and against siting London's third airport at Stansted."
As these passages are relevant and verifiable I don't understand why they have been removed. An explanation would be welcome. Marshall46 (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


No explanation was forthcoming, so I have reverted these deletions. Marshall46 (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take your points Marshall and thank you for your excellent work here. I would welcome some discussion with you at some time. Mu email is terry@camhosts.net. I am far from the UK so a physical meeting is not a possibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrychandler (talk • contribs) 20:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The idea for the c100 came originally from Ralph and the artist Gustav Metzger. They approached members of the DAC. I don't think this fact has ever been documented so difficult to give a reference. For this reason i include "and others". Ralph's background was New Left/ Partisan Cafe not CND which is why I deleted that. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.121.19.127 (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:C100.jpg[edit]

Image:C100.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spies for Peace[edit]

Have added detail to this important section. I was part of the group that 'charged' the RSG and have referenced the addition from Stuart Christie's book. Aimulti (talk) 10:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Square demo 1962[edit]

There are a lot of sources for the demonstration in Red Square organised by the Committee for Non-Violence Action in 1961 but I can't find any for a demonstration by the Industrial Sub-Committee of C100 in 1962. Help, please. Marshall46 (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Marshall46 (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Committee of 100 (United Kingdom)[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Committee of 100 (United Kingdom)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "driver":

  • From Direct Action Committee: Christopher Driver, The Disarmers, London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1964
  • From Peace symbols: Christopher Driver, The Disarmers: A Study in Protest, London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1964

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breach of the peace[edit]

I have removed the words "an act of 1361" in relation to breach of the peace charges against Committee of 100 protesters. No doubt this referred to the Justices of the Peace Act, 1361. The Wikipedia article says that breach of the peace is a common law offence, not a statutory office, although it descends from the 1361 act. Anyway, why is it relevant? Marshall46 (talk) 13:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The act of 1361 allows any magistrate to summon a member of the public to " show cause why he should not be bound over to keep the peace" There are no charges. This is nothing to do with the common law charge of breach of the peace.
All listed members of the committee were summoned to court under this act. Many ignored the summons. No warrant was issued for their arrest and no further action taken against them.
The same act is used by magistrates as a form of sentence. I had earlier served six months for "refusing to be bound over" after the second Foulness demonstration. In both cases the sentence served is for refusing to sign the binding over not for the original charge. The sentence is served as a "Civil Prisoner" with no remission and different rules and conditions.
You ask why it is relevant. It was unprecedented to use such an ancient act in such a way. No charge was made against us. It allowed the court to impose prison sentences without trial. There was no defence for the committee. We had a choice either agree to call off the demonstration or go to jail. We agreed unanimously to go to jail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrychandler (talk • contribs) 20:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand: it was clearly a political/legal ruse to stop the Committee of 100. Can you put some sources in? Marshall46 (talk) 11:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

17 September 1961[edit]

I removed this passage added by Mike Maybury:

"The BBC television programme devoted a whole hour to the demonstration, with its team interviewing protestors. This was shown that evening at 6pm. (As the BBC no longer has a copy, the writer of this is seeking anyone who might have made a tape of the film.)" Pelarmian (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Committee of 100 (United Kingdom). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Committee of 100 (United Kingdom). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Committee_of_100_(United_Kingdom)&oldid=1206760275"