It's particularly ironic that the "self-appointed" G8 is now increasingly being seen as opposed only by the self-appointed Dissent non-organisation. This non-organisation has disenfranchised a large body of people who would otherwise dissent from the G8. "Dissent" will not allow religious or union based organisations to be part of it, and anyone getting involved with them must sign up to the principles espoused on their website ie direct action or nothing.

If I want to object to the G8 through some form of non-direct action (for example just turning up at Gleneagles with a placard), any "dissent" on my part will be seen by those not in the know as part of the overall "Dissent" movement.

So, corporate hegemony takes on a new twist - a group of organisations, not prepared to say who they are, "copyright" a generic term (Dissent) for their own purposes without recognisable mass support. And we all thought Labour were the masters of spin.

Exactly which organisations are part of the "Dissent" network? I think we should be told. Will you tell us tonight?

Two similar comments due to my frustration with the posting mechanism working at less than snail's pace (still/again), only showing as 1 comment on the header page, but still no feedback from Dissent...

er Radjel, pity you feel like that.

There are many people and organisations opposing the G8 - if I choose to oppose it myself, as you do, then I guess we're self-appointed, so I don't understand this as an insult. No-one has been disenfranchsised from protesting against the G8 - there are many religious, union-based and other kinds of organisations with public plans to protest, some through direct action, others not.

It feels maybe like you've felt the media you read is dominated by the Dissent name - well, there are many other media, mainstream or not, and websites, which push other organisation. Why, even Indymedia has links to a whole range, though there are of course more which you can find with a web search.

Dissent is what it says on the box - it's not a group of organisations. If you, I or anyone else chose to be part of Dissent, or went along to a Dissent protest, we would be part of it and could say who we were if we chose to. Dissent says what it is - individuals within it do not, not just because of police action, but because it is open to people getting involved. It hasn't disenfranchised anyone, nor stopped anyone doing what they want to (how could it), nor 'copyrighted' the term. Reclaim the Streets didn't stop the government using the same term, and I guess it didn't have recognisable mass support until 10,000 people turned up on the day.

One of the great things about tonight's meeting was its completely un-sectarian nature, and the recognition of everyone there that every type of action against the G8 is welcome. "Dissent" is not the only "banner" around the anti-G8 actions - there's also "G8 Alternatives" and "Make Poverty History", to name two. It's just about getting organized to actually do stuff. By the way, if you want to know the local groups signed up to the Dissent Network, check out:  http://www.dissent.org.uk/content/view/16/27/
A secret it isn't.

Another - I appreciate your views, and yes there are other "non-groups", but read what "Dissent!" is saying. To be part of their "non-organisation" you must sign up to (or more likely implicitly agree with) their founding principles. These are clearly on their website for those who look - but how many do, when the message being pushed is one of help to protest at the G8. I'm sure lots of individuals would like that sort of help. But the consequence is that these individuals will either be seen to be part of the "Dissent!" brand, or be used by those who devised the brand, as fully supporting the brand's aims. These aims (see the website) specifically exclude religious groups/trade unions (see the post several months back on indymedia where a group was excluded from a march) and anyone who wants to protest (or dissent from the G8) using non-direct action means. Sorry, I know what a brand looks like - and I'm looking at one right now.

Richarddirecttv - locally every type of action may be welcome, but read the website for the "Dissent!" brand - as I explain to Another above, only certain types of action are allowed by "true" dissenters. Your link doesn't give me any information about who is behind "Dissent!" - who started it, who came up with the cute logo, the idea that not only is it "Dissent", but it has the clever exclamation mark with it as well. How are decisions actually made, and to what overall purpose? If the name is so irrelevant why didn't you call yourselves "Bob?" or "Fish(*)", or even just "a group of people getting together to organise for G8"?

Look, and read carefully, what "Dissent!" says about itself at  http://www.dissent.org.uk/content/view/62/52/
If you completely agree, fine, carry on, but please don't use the "Dissent!" brand.

Agree completely with Radjel. I have a similar reaction to "G8 Alternatives". How dare they "brand" the word "alternatives", when many people such as myself who propose alternatives to the G8 are not part of this grouping? It's the same with "Make Poverty History". How can the trade unions and NGOs in this campaign brand this initiative, when people such as myself and indeed Mr Paul Wolfowitz of the World Bank have made clear our oppostion to world poverty, but certainly would not use the protest tactics espoused by this coalition?

> To be part of their "non-organisation" you must sign up to (or more likely implicitly > agree with) their founding principles.
Don't you just hate it when people are transparent...
> These are clearly on their website for those who look - but how many do, when
> the message being pushed is one of help to protest at the G8.
I know, I know. What can you do - people can be just so lazy...

What's with your brand phobia anyway? That seems to be your main critique. If I knew you, I could talk about the "Radjel brand" (but I don't know how it would be very useful)!?! I know it's become popular these days to criticize brands for their very brand-ness, but hey, even No Logo has become a brand...! Crazy crazy world we live in.

Now there's an example where someone, Naomi Klein, goes out there in public and speaks "on behalf of the anti-globalization movement", or suggests what we should do in Britain, from her very North American and specific viewpoint. Now I've got a problem with that. But I don't with Dissent! - no-one's going to speak on my behalf (see their media guidelines); if I was part of a local group, we could decide to speak on our own behalf. That is not the "used" you are talking about I feel...

Throughout your posts when you talk about the Dissent! brand, you could rewrite it saying that actually they are being very clear and transparent about what being part of Dissent! is (more so than other organisations and coalitions that have been mentioned), they've said where they originated from and what forms of protest they do, how decisions are made. If you want to be part of those protests and methods, do it; if you don't, don't - sounds simple and democratic surely. To see that as taking over any forms of dissent against the G8 is faintly ridiculous. And I'm sure people have different overall purposes that are involved - that seems more democractic and diverse to me in any case.

Well, that's enough. Time for me to go out and enjoy the sun, and not be so damn serious! But hey, I better drop the another™® brand.

It's great that richarddirecttv agrees completely with me. But I'm not sure I understand the rest of his post.

It would have been even better if he'd said this at the start, and saved all this e-discussion. And a shame that he can't recognise the point being made - "Dissent!" require (assume) that all participating in their initiatives sign up to their Hallmarks, as they have made clear on their Festival entry.

Attempts at irony, sarcasm or just whatever only demonstrate an unwillingness (inability?) to understand (or even acknowledge) my point - if it's not a deliberate use of the word designed to hijack dissenters of other types to their cause so they can claim more support, why didn't they call it something else?

And Make Poverty History doesn't mandate that anyone signs up to anything before supporting. And it hasn't as far as I am aware, stopped anyone working with them (unlike "Dissent!" a few months ago - richarddirecttv please read your own media).

Radjel - at least you don't have the word "dissent" in your own name. Imagine my chagrin when the Direct Action Network colonised the word "direct". I don't like to be confused with long-haired direct action types, when the only dissenting I want to do is through protracted internet discussion.

another - clearly i'm not making my point clearly enough, for which apologies. Branding is a standard corporate approach to increasing market share (but I'm sure you know that). Using the "Dissent!" term aggregates support by the use of name plus punctuation that makes them want to belong; you recognise that people may want to get on with protesting and not be concerned about the detail and that's all fine (up to them, lazy or otherwise). But if the end result is that the "Dissent Network" claims an amount of support, a proportion of which is not there, then they will have achieved their aim. I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but the way in which "Dissent!" is being marketed (and now used so much in relation to G8 protest activity) just makes me wonder who's behind it. That's all. So by all means enjoy the sunshine.

richarddirecttv - I'm sorry you're being so defensive and not prepared to add anything to this discussion. Along with war, violence, racism and the rest of society's other ills I'd also like to cut out attempted sarcasm and not being prepared to listen, but their way down my list and life's too short. There's a grown up discussion to be had sometime about who really is behind the Dissent Network and why, but I'm going out to enjoy the weather now along with someone else.

Since my response from a couple of days ago seems to have been "disappeared", here it is again.

another - clearly i'm not making my point clearly enough, for which apologies. Branding is a standard corporate approach to increasing market share (but I'm sure you know that). Using the "Dissent!" term aggregates support by the use of name plus punctuation that makes them want to belong; you recognise that people may want to get on with protesting and not be concerned about the detail and that's all fine (up to them, lazy or otherwise). But if the end result is that the "Dissent Network" claims an amount of support, a proportion of which is not there, then they will have achieved their aim. I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but the way in which "Dissent!" is being marketed (and now used so much in relation to G8 protest activity) just makes me wonder who's behind it. That's all. So by all means enjoy the sunshine.

richarddirecttv - I'm sorry you're being so defensive and not prepared to add anything to this discussion. Along with war, violence, racism and the rest of society's other ills I'd also like to cut out attempted sarcasm and not being prepared to listen, but their way down my list and life's too short. There's a grown up discussion to be had sometime about who really is behind the Dissent Network and why, but I'm going out to enjoy the weather now along with someone else.