Part 397. Distract and divert

Public bodies are required to consult the public, including voluntary organisations, on a range of issues. The consultations most often are on-line.  The presentation of the issue and the accompanying questionnaire may well be loaded.  A consultation is just that.  It is not binding and responses may be ignored.  It is often a cosmetic exercise to satisfy a legislative requirement.  

Some voluntary organisations spend money and effort in raising petitions to statutory bodies.  Again, they can be and are ignored: or simply receive condescending  responses from the organisations to whom they are addressed.

Sometimes aggrieved consultees and petition originators seek judicial review should they believe the public body concerned has failed to give sufficient weight to representations. However judicial review is very expensive and whilst it may be successful, the eventual outcome is usually simply to delay matters rather than overturn the decision of the public body.

A favourite wheeze is to set up a consultative body meeting on an on-going basis to consider issues.  Such bodies usually are talking shops  and have little effect on the eventual decision making process.  However churches waste, time, energy and resources in participating in such farces. 

A few examples from personal experience.

Connexions. 

PACT. Partners and Communities Together. In some areas known as Police and Communities Together.

CLSP. Community Legal Service Partnership

CP. Strategic community plans.

Compact.

Surf the internet for more information on these bodies. They all have in common the pretence of participation is the decision making process, of having significant influence on decision makers. At best they provide a safety valve for individuals and voluntary organisations to let off steam.

However there are two important beneficial aspects to such consultative arrangements. 

1. Networking and making contact with potential allies

2. Identifying key players in the organisations making decisions. 

This post may give the impression that I am a cynic.  Spot on, I have the scars to show from involvement in such bodies.  The conclusion I drew then is that for a church to  promote and campaign for change requires determination to secure allies and then to communicate directly and forcefully with the decision makers in an organisation.

On a different tack, I doubt the effectiveness of demonstrations as having any long-term major influence.  I marched on the huge anti Iraq war demonstrations in London that had nil effect on  the determination of the government to invade Iraq.  Direct action such as blocking roads, disrupting sporting events may well be counter-productive.