I can start a separate page/group for this project and I'll set up an edit password, which you can share with other CIPR members interested in participating.

[*] http://www.thenewpr.com

So David Brain has had an unexpected opportunity to chat face to face with Colin Farrington, CIPR director-general. And the conversation has thrown up a challenge – what does the UK social media community want CIPR to do to promote these new communica…

As to: "The majority of trade and professional magazines would have virtually no content if it wasn't for ghost-written material produced by public relations professionals."

Come on Stuart – that's a sweeping statement. And if it was even vaguely true then do you think readers are so stupid as to not see through it. I've seen enough examples to know this is grade A shilling – exactly what PR wants through its comnmand and control approach. Where's the 'new' in that?

David Brain has posted a copy of Colin Farrington’s reply to his original letter aired on the Edelman CEO’s Sixtysecondview vlog. I will leave David and others to air their views on Colin’s robust response! Stuart Bruce also covers the

1. I have just read Colin's comments on Elizabeth Albrycht's blog. I was trying my hardest to take a purely professional view on Colin's blog opinions, but having read his comments here I can only conclude that he is not a nice person. While you could certainly argue that his points are valid, he puts them across in such an unpleasent way he utterly undermines himself.

2. Colin's comments re. transparency were also directed at my former employer shortly after his initial salvo against blogging in July. In an email to my employer he questioned the transparency of blogs such as mine, suggesting my blog was non-transparent because I didn't reference my employer.

I can't remember Colin's full argument as it was sent via a private email to my MD and although it concerned me, I was not copied in. I did see hard copies when my MD spoke to me about the original posts I made and I seem to recall that the gist was: I am making statements about PR and the PR industry in a personal capacity, but it wouldn't take a genius with Google to connect my statements with my then employer. I think he implied this was professionally dubious – perhaps using the legal logic of the La Petite Anglaise case – and potentially damaging to my employer and its clients.

Luckily both myself and my boss agreed that as I wasn't posting anything damaging, inflammatory or libellous then it was all ok.

But a nice summons to the MD's office all the same!