{"id":1506,"date":"2024-09-02T12:09:43","date_gmt":"2024-09-02T11:09:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.theproject.me.uk\/?p=1506"},"modified":"2024-09-05T11:06:29","modified_gmt":"2024-09-05T10:06:29","slug":"andrew-rigbys-personal-analysis-of-background-to-current-peace-news-issues","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.theproject.me.uk\/?p=1506","title":{"rendered":"Andrew Rigby’s Personal Analysis of Background To Current Peace News Issues"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The following is a personal analysis of the current Peace news situation by Andrew Rigby.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. Personal Preface
    I have been involved with Peace News (PN) since I first started reading it as a 14 year old
    in Prescot, Merseyside around 1958. By that time I had begun to define myself as a
    pacifist, but it was through the pages of PN that I learned how to be a pacifist, what such
    an ethic implied for one\u2019s lifestyle and activities.
    As a research student at Essex University in 1968 I conducted a survey of Peace News
    readers which became the basis of my MA thesis.
    In 1972 I participated in a meeting at the farm owned by Howard Cheney where it was
    decided on a new company structure, with Peace News Trustees as the parent company
    with the two subsidiary companies of Peace News Limited running the publication and
    Housmans responsible for the bookshop at 5 Caledonian Road.
    Subsequently I was a board member of Peace News Trustees (PNT) and Peace News
    Limited (PNL) for many years. Sometime around 2009 I resigned from the board of PNL \u2013
    I did not see the point of participating as a board member when the editor, Milan Rai,
    took absolutely no notice of inputs from board members regarding the quality of the
    paper. In 2018 I resigned from the board of PNT in disgust at the failure of the board to
    take substantive action on the basis of a consultant\u2019s report on the challenges facing
    Peace News as a movement publication.
    In 2022 I rejoined the board of PNT following a plea from one of the long-standing
    members who expressed the fear that the board had become so weak that it was in
    danger of emasculation through some form of organisational restructuring being
    orchestrated by Milan Rai. Since then more of my time than I anticipated has been taken
    up with dealing with an endless struggle to establish some kind of collegiate relationship
    between PNT and PNL\/PN staff. During that time I have had to witness the unbalanced
    behaviour of Milan Rai as he struggled to protect his \u2018kingdom\u2019 from any attempts by PNT
    to establish some system where we, as trustees, might obtain some degree of insight
    into the intentions and the political vision of the editor of what was clearly a failing
    project.
    Time after time Glyn Carter, as chair of PNT, made approaches to the board of PNL and
    the staff to sit in on some of their meetings, to gain a sense of how the company was
    operating and the nature of its strategy to meet the challenges that all print media face.
    Again and again such attempts were rebuffed \u2013 and for his troubles he was subjected to
    one of Milan Rai\u2019s typical tactics: the personalisation of issues with Glyn pilloried as an
    authoritarian who lacked the ethical commitment to the core values of pacifism that
    informed the group of companies. It became a nasty business, and in the process any
    basis for trust between the parties engaged in the struggle was lost.
    Reluctantly the decision was made by the PNT board to cease funding PNL, in the hope
    that this would bring PNL and staff to their senses and recognise the need to take their
    funders, PNT, into their confidence. Instead the staff announced their resignation, along
    with those board members of PNL that had been invited on to the board by the staff \u2013
    then we learned that the staff had \u2018gone public\u2019.
    In the issue of Peace News (August 2024) they published a scurrilous, distorted and
    possibly libellous portrayal of Peace News trustees who allegedly had brought about a
    situation in which PN staff, as poor victims, felt forced to resign and close down the paper
    (as if it was theirs to close down!). This is a fiction, driven by a desire to cause as much
    damage as possible to those who have had the temerity to insist on their right (and duty)
    as trustees of a company responsible for funding a (failing) publication to insist on some
    degree of accountability from those directly responsible for the project \u2013 the staff and the
    PNL board, their employers.
    In the notes that follow I attempt to present an overview of the different phases of the
    troubled relationship between PN editorial staff since their appointment in 2007, and the
    board of PNT.<\/li>
  2. Organisation structure
    At the core of the conflict surrounding the resignation of Peace News (PN) staff and
    subsequent actions by the staff is the persistent refusal by the staff to provide the board
    of the parent company PNT with appropriate information about their editorial policy and
    future plans for the paper. A refusal that is all the more astounding given that PNT has
    provided an annual subsidy to its subsidiary company PNL (Peace News Limited) that has
    enabled the staff to remain in post whilst producing the paper.1
    The formal relationship between the staff, PNL and PNT was made clear to the editorial
    staff on appointment in 2007. Here is an extract from their terms of employment:
    Peace News staff are employed by and managed by the board of Peace News Ltd
    (PNL), which is legally responsible for the publication of Peace News.
    The Peace News company are nominees of Peace News Trustees (PNT), and the
    Peace News company is answerable to PNT; however the parent company is not
    involved in the day-to-day management of Peace News.<\/li>
  3. The core issue
    The core issue at the heart of the tension between PNT and the editorial staff of Peace
    News (Milan Rai in particular) has been over the question of the quality of the paper and
    editorial accountability. Within two years of their appointment as staff they were being
    asked by PNT members to acknowledge the principle that the PN staff owed a degree of
    accountability to the trustees, PNT was not just a cash-cow to provide an annual subsidy
    to enable the staff to continue publishing a paper without answering basic questions such
    as those first posed by Bob Overy to Milan Rai in December 2009:
    What is PN for? Why is it worth supporting? What are PN editors trying to
    do? What are their political aims? What would be a good result? \u2026.
    The Trustees Board doesn\u2019t necessarily need to agree with what you
    propose. It just needs to be satisfied that it has been presented with a
    coherent proposition, one which fits with our broad objectives as Trustees,
    makes sense as a political enterprise and can work in business terms with
    a fair wind.2
    To the best of my knowledge Bob never received a satisfactory answer to his questions.<\/li>
  4. The redesign farrago \u2013 2010-11
    In 2010 PN initiated a project to redesign the appearance of the paper. Then, in July 2011
    the trustees received a letter from two professional media designers advising us that
    1 Some degree of tension is perhaps inevitable between journalists and management.
    2 Bob Overy to Milan Rai, 5 December 2009
    after months of involvement they had reluctantly decided to withdraw. Their experience
    was unpleasant \u2013 \u2018our working relationship with the PN team has gone through one crisis
    after another, each without satisfactory resolution\u2019. After 17 months involvement they
    came to the professional judgement that \u2018during this time PN has not picked up even the
    rudiments of what editorial design is about\u2019.
    They had expected that they would work collaboratively as team members with the
    editorial staff. Unfortunately \u2018this collaboration was largely withheld from us\u2019. A key
    reason for this failure to establish appropriate working relationships was because they
    were \u2018unable to engage in direct discussion with the one person in the team in whose
    hands the editing (and editorial decision-making) predominantly lay.\u2019
    They continued: \u2018For reasons we do not entirely understand \u2013 this person also appeared
    deeply reluctant to work with us and actively withheld their collaboration\u2019 \u2013 a pattern of
    Milan Rai\u2019s behaviour some of us were still witnessing over a decade later!
    They concluded their letter by referring to an experience shared by many who have tried
    to work collaboratively with Milan Rai. They confessed:
    In truth we are also wearied and disillusioned by the negativity, mistrust
    (and even hostility) we have from time to time faced in recent months.
    These seem the opposite conditions to those ideal for a good, fruitful,
    comradely working relationship.3<\/li>
  5. \u2018The elephant in the room\u20194
    Throughout this period the trustees were privately asking themselves how to try and
    handle the problem of Milan Rai, as sales declined and the distance between the editorial
    staff and the trustees grew. Some of us started to refer to the issue as \u2018the elephant in
    the room\u2019. It was Howard Clark, a key member of the trustee body, who first applied the
    metaphor in a confidential document he shared with other trustees in September 2013
    entitled \u2018A relevant elephant?\u2019 In this document Howard reflected on the manner in which
    PNT repeatedly tried to raise issues regarding PN\u2019s strategy, focus & constituency, but
    failed to receive answers, whilst the circulation of the paper continued to decline. He
    identified two areas of concern:
    a. The quality of the paper – and editorial accountability
    There is vacuum in terms of editorial accountability, a vacuum which is a
    recipe for editorial deterioration. \u2026 PNL is a nominal body; PNL working
    groups consist only of staff & no evidence it reviews content of paper, and
    no other forum where paper is evaluated. We should insist such a forum
    come into existence.
    b. Sustainability
    What base is being laid for the future? When Mil & Emily leave is that the
    end of the paper? What does this mean for us strategically: Wait for the
    end or try to bring it nearer?5<\/li>
  6. Alternative ways for PNT to promote the pacifist vision
    3 All quotations in this section are from a confidential letter to Peace News Trustees, 5 July
    2011.
    4 This expression is a metaphorical idiom in English for a situation where an important
    topic or controversial issue that everyone knows about but no one mentions or discusses
    because it would cause discomfort and unease.
    5 Howard Clark, \u2018A relevant elephant?\u2019, private paper September 2013.
    Howard was one of the people who, on more than one occasion, raised the question of
    alternative uses for the annual PNT subsidy other than supporting a publication that
    lacked a clear political vision alongside declining distribution figures. In October 2013 he
    advised Milan Rai:
    There is nothing in the Articles of Association to stop PNT becoming a
    grant-giving body offering support to whoever is doing good work to
    promote nonviolence. \u2026
    PNT grant to PNL was instituted in 1990 \u2026 on the basis of PNL submitting
    an appropriate business plan. \u2026 A budget is not a business plan \u2026 perhaps
    there has been an implicit strategy including the various initiatives
    (beyond producing the paper), but without a strategic and political
    evaluation of that combination of activities, Trustees are left with bald
    figures (which seem to be of continuing decline) and personal reactions to
    the paper.6<\/li>
  7. PN staff assert their editorial autonomy
    In a discussion paper presented for consideration at a joint PNT-PNL meeting held 16
    October 2013 PN staff and their working group (PNL Board was non-existent at this time)
    asserted their independence, rejecting any role for PNT beyond funding PN.
    We are also working with the premise that editorial control of all PNL
    publications is entirely a matter for the editors of Peace News. \u2026
    We also understand that decision-making within PNL is entirely a matter
    for PNL (Board, staff, advisors) \u2013 as long as PNL is satisfying the legal
    requirements of its limited company form, and as long as it is financially
    viable.7<\/li>
  8. Pattern established: PNT persists in seeking some degree of accountability, PN staff
    and board\/working group reject such requests as infringement of editorial independence.
    By early 2014 the pattern was established after PNT requested quarterly reports from PN.
    This was rejected with an affirmation that this constituted an infringement of their
    editorial independence:
    Our considered view (@ 21 July 2014 working group meeting) is that this
    would be a breach of PN\u2019s editorial independence, and we therefore cannot
    comply with this request. We believe that such quarterly editorial reports
    would establish the principle that the editors of PN are accountable to PNT
    for their day-to-day editorial decisions.8<\/li>
  9. Weakness of PNTL board and failure to fulfil its role as trustees
    In the years that followed, particularly after the untimely death of Howard Clark, a
    mainstay of PNTL, the trustees failed in their duty to insist on some degree of
    accountability from Milan Rai and his co-workers. The decline in circulation of the paper
    continued and the dissatisfaction of individual trustees with the editorial quality of the
    publication grew \u2013 but in the face of the strident refusal of Milan Rai to concede any
    6 Email, Howard Clark to Milan Rai, 5 October 2013.
    7 Paper dated 13 October 2013 for consideration at joint PN-PNT meeting, 16 October
    2013.
    8 PNL working group to PNTL, August 2014.
    meaningful degree of accountability the trustees backed down. There seemed to be no
    clear path forward, with a number of trustees resigning.
    Looking back now it seems incredible that \u2018the elephants in the room\u2019 was not recognised
    and changes made. But it is relevant to understand that historically most editors of PN
    resigned after a few years in post, exhausted and ready for new pastures. PNT had never
    faced a situation where an editor insisted on clinging on to his position. Furthermore, as
    part of a wider peace movement, those volunteering and working in different capacities
    under the umbrella of PNT had viewed each other as comrades rather then employers-
    employees. There was no organisational history or record of staff being submitted to
    performance review exercises or anything like that. We were ill-equipped to deal with this
    challenge of an editor who was not afraid to insist on maintaining sovereignty over his
    domain.<\/li>
  10. A consultant\u2019s overview – 20189
    In May 2016 PNT had a special meeting to discuss the situation with regard to PN. A
    number of critical points were raised:
    \uf0b7 The \u201cmessages\u201d of the paper needed to be clarified and
    strengthened.
    \uf0b7 An editorial group was essential.
    \uf0b7 An editor was needed who listened as much as wrote.
    \uf0b7 There was a need for a wider range of writers, beyond the staff,
    who could bring new perspectives, thereby helping the paper to
    define its message.
    The board recognised it had failed in not providing the kind of constructive involvement
    that was necessary for such changes to take place, and it was resolved that one of the
    board members should take a special interest in helping to generate an active and
    engaged set of board members for PNL. Unfortunately, despite declared intentions, there
    was very little evidence of change.10
    One way forward was to commission a report from a consultant familiar with \u2018movement
    media\u2019, and in February 2018 he shared his report with PNT. It made for interesting
    reading. Its main conclusion was that PN\u2019s decline indicated failure to adapt to changed
    circumstances rather than a collapse in support for its core values. But the decline was
    also due to matters over which the staff had no control – the changes in reading habits,
    the technological changes in communications etc.
    When he turned his attention to the actual paper being published under the title of
    \u2018Peace News\u2019 he was quite damning, identifying issues that many of us had talked about
    privately but refrained from \u2018going public\u2019 out of comradely loyalty. But seeing as that
    value is now out of fashion here are some of the observations made:<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n