[spectre] Arts Council adds new gagging clause to NPO contracts

[{ brad brace }]

that's not the half of it!
all sanctioned art institutions misappropriate public funds
as a matter of course: this is what they're about!
what's worse is that their subsidized tyranny
usually/effectively precludes other
informal/personal/vital venues...
despicable/official corruption
that validated artist-victims are too cowardly to oppose

/:b


On Mon, 22 Sep 2014, marc garrett wrote:

> Hi Heath,
>
>  >the arts council scapegoated irational.org instead
>  >of supporting it as is its mandate
>
> Your experience with the Arts Council sounds terrible.
>
> The ACE response at the bottom of the article seems to say their main
> concern is about misappropriation of public funds. But what does this
> really mean, it could mean anything, what examples do they have that we
> can look at?
>
> Surely we are entering a kind of totalitarian initiative reflecting an
> arts version of Minority report-- a kind of panopticon of the arts,
> where concerns based on losing one's funding creates a perpetual
> condition of fear, therefore self-censorship.
>
> Wishing you well.
>
> marc
>
>
> > On Mon, 22 Sep 2014, marc garrett wrote:
> >
> >
> > irational was blacklisted by arts council
> > for displaying arts council logo on irational website
> > as stipulated by arts council funding requirements
> > after the daily mail newspaper published a hit piece against
> > arts council using irational.org as a weapon
> >
> > the arts council scapegoated irational.org instead of supporting it
> > as is its mandate
> >
> > i received a call from the chief exec of arts council at the time
> > swearing and threatening me that if we did not remove the logo from
> > our our site immediately he would fuck us up
> >
> > we waited a few days to discuss internally and then removed it
> > during which time, other government departments had further threatened
> > irational.org
> >
> > this new gagging clause it to protect individual careers in the arts
> > council not even the arts council itself
> >
> >
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Thought this important to share here....
> >>
> >> marc
> >>
> >> Arts Council adds new gagging clause to NPO contracts
> >>
> >> Arts organisations and those connected to them must be sure not to do
> >> anything that could damage ACE’s reputation as a Government sponsored
> >> body, else their grants could be at risk.
> >>
> >> Arts Council England (ACE) is inserting a new clause into its
> >> National Portfolio Organisation (NPO) grant contracts for 2015-18 to
> >> deter any individual involved with those organisations in any
> >> capacity from doing anything that ACE considers might damage its
> >> reputation. Under the new draft contract, from 2015 ACE will be able
> >> to “impose additional terms and conditions” on an NPO if it judges
> >> that the organisation’s staff, trustees, volunteers or anyone else
> >> “closely involved” with it may be acting so as to have a “detrimental
> >> effect… on its [ACE’s] reputation as a distributor of public money or
> >> as a Government sponsored body”. Under the 2012-15 NPO contracts, ACE
> >> could withhold or demand repayment of all or part of an
> >> organisation’s grant if it acted in a way that was likely to harm
> >> ACE’s reputation, and this clause remains in the new contract, but
> >> the much broader scope of the new clause has raised serious concerns
> >> across the sector.
> >>
> >> Potentially the new clause could not only prevent anyone connected
> >> with an NPO from speaking publicly about ACE decisions or policies,
> >> but it could also give the funding body the power to withdraw from
> >> arts activities that it initially agrees to fund, but which it
> >> subsequently judges to be too politically or socially sensitive.
> >> Simon Hughes MP, Minister of State for Justice and Civil Liberties,
> >> told AP: “I think this clause is too extreme. I understand that ACE
> >> want to discourage organisations from public criticism but this
> >> wording is drafted also to control individuals and curb their
> >> fundamental freedom of speech. I would urge funded organisations to
> >> think carefully before signing up to this restriction of activity for
> >> their staff, governing bodies and volunteers.”
> >>