Consultation Responses
AV8R, 09 Nov 2005 15:29:56
Just thought this may be a good time to mention that so far the numbers of consultation responses seems to be pathetically low.
Only 30 odd in Scotland, and what, less than 100 in England?
And a good percentage of these, perhaps more than 50% so far, will be from people (JLT etc) SUPPORTING the bill.
I also note that WHICH computing magazine had a news item giving the consultation link in this months issue. (and a news item supporting the .xxx domain as a good way to legislate net porn)
Their readers are the type of people that will respond on-line, and will probably overwhelmingly support the legislation.
I don't know why we are not getting the message out, but we really do need to try harder or use more effective means.
Av8r
zak, 09 Nov 2005 16:53:37
SOrry to perform a mini-highjack on your thread, but every time I try to
post something
with a changed heading, it doesn't seem to appear. To recap a couple of my
postings that
vanished:
I sent in my response to the CLPU email address and got an email confirming
that it had
been recieved, and thanking me for my interest. So that's a method that
works.
I'll happily post my response (which was in the form of a letter rather
than ploughing
through the questionnaire) for the rest of you to read and you're free to
nick bits if you
want t
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
AV8R, 09 Nov 2005 17:56:14
Author wrote:
> SOrry to perform a mini-highjack on your thread,
No problem, highjack away.
But back on topic, there does seem to be a hell of a lot of critiscism of workable ideas that would get the job done, but precious little alternative solutions. (the spam argument, being the latest example of many)
The current response rate to the consultation is pathetic, and made worse by the fact that probably half those responses will be PRO LEGISLATION....
Come on people, as what we are doing is clearly not working to the extent we need it to, we must try some new ideas.
Any suggestions?
Av8r
Graham Marsden, 09 Nov 2005 18:22:16
av8r0344@hotmail.com wrote:
> I also note that WHICH computing magazine had a news item
> giving the consultation link in this months issue.
>
> Their readers are the type of people that will respond on-line,
> and will probably overwhelmingly support the legislation.
Err, I read Which? (although not computing Which?) and I think most
Which? readers are the type who will not fall for hype and rhetoric and
will actually think about what's being proposed and examine the details
because if they weren't that type they wouldn't read Which? at all.
Cheers,
Graham.
SnowdropExplodes, 09 Nov 2005 18:23:45
--- av8r0344@hotmail.com wrote:
> But back on topic, there does seem to be a hell of a
> lot of critiscism of workable ideas that would get
> the job done, but precious little alternative
> solutions. (the spam argument, being the latest
> example of many)
>
> The current response rate to the consultation is
> pathetic, and made worse by the fact that probably
> half those responses will be PRO LEGISLATION....
Where are you getting your figures for the "response
rate"? And on what are you basing your estimate that
half of them will be against us? Although, frankly,
if only half of the responses are reported as pro,
then I think we'll have done pretty well. That means
they have to observe a 50% opposed, and the reasons
why.
There's nothing on the Home Office page about numbers
of responses.
The pledgebank Pledge shows 37 have signed up so far,
most of whom I recognise from this list or IC.
***
The urgency that "We must do SOMEthing" must not give
way to the lunacy that is "We must do ANYthing". If
none of the options available are a good idea, then it
is better to do nothing.
Your "workable ideas", where they are reasonable and
genuinely workable, I think are being done. Spamming
people on IC or other BDSM boards is not a good idea.
On IC, as has been pointed out, there is now a
campaign banner leading the campaign website. Just
about everything that is reasonable to do there is
already done.
As for alternative suggestions, perhaps it would be a
worthwhile use of Backlash campaign funds to buy an
advert in suitable publications?
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
Lothario, 09 Nov 2005 18:35:49
With reference to Another Thread, perhaps we could start "Which Censorship?"
--
Lothario.
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death my right
to stop you saying it." - Charles Clarke (attributed)
Lothario, 09 Nov 2005 18:41:54
Having a separate email announcements list that people could sign up
to via the Backlash website would be a good idea.
I get the impression that quite a few people have joined this group
only to be highly disappointed that there is a great deal of traffic
and discussion on it, when they were expecting just the occasional bit
of news.
--
Lothario.
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death my right
to stop you saying it." - Charles Clarke (attributed)
clare, 09 Nov 2005 18:43:59
Good idea. Should we censor with endless pointless insults, or should we censor with endless pointless insults?
Author wrote:
> With reference to Another Thread, perhaps we could start "Which Censorship?"
> --
> Lothario.
> "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death my right
> to stop you saying it." - Charles Clarke (attributed)
Graham Marsden, 09 Nov 2005 18:49:26
av8r0344@hotmail.com wrote:
> The current response rate to the consultation is pathetic,
> and made worse by the fact that probably half those
> responses will be PRO LEGISLATION....
Actually that's nowhere near as bad as you paint it.
I haven't been able to find any figures for actual responses (positive
and negative) to consultations but I wouldn't be surprised if many (or
even most) consultations go through "on the nod" or only get positive
responses because most people don't even hear about them.
For half the responses to be *against* the proposals should run up a big
warning flag that it's not so clear cut as they might like.
Of course we do still have to trust that the Home Office will report the
results accurately, but responses are supposed to be made public, so
once the consultation period is over it might be worth seeing if we can
get access to them just to make sure everything is above board.
Cheers,
Graham.
AV8R, 09 Nov 2005 19:07:42
Yeah, look, for about the 100th time now, nobody is suggesting mass spamming people. Also, not all unsolicited mail (email or otherwise) is spam, and if so then every political party in britain is guilty of probably the biggest spam event in the country come election time, so lets drop this pontless argument re spam.
Figures for the response rate are notified to respondents from the home office and scottish executive as each response is recieved.
I'm sorry, but as IC has tens of thousands of members (someone said 70,000, not sure if this is accurate)and other groups must be another 20,000 or so, then a response to the consultation of 30 odd people in scotland, plus 100 odd in england, plus 37 on the pledgebank (some of whom have already submitted it) so far really is fairly pathetic, and shows just how much more work there is to be done in the next 3 weeks.
Common sense will tell you that the Jane Longhurst trust is just as active at getting people to respond to the consultation as we are...... And on top of that they also have a 35,000 + strong signed petition (could be 50,000 by the time they submit it in November). So I really dont think a 50/50 response will remotely look good for us.
Because at the end of the day it will be, 100 for, 100 against, and then 35,000 more for...
At least if we mobilise several thousand responses, we could have some ammunition.....
I agree with you that adverts need to be done and soon, and equally, large amounts of fundraising need to be done to pay for them.
Av8r
Author wrote:
> --- av8r0344@hotmail.com wrote:
> > But back on topic, there does seem to be a hell of a
> > lot of critiscism of workable ideas that would get
> > the job done, but precious little alternative
> > solutions. (the spam argument, being the latest
> > example of many)
> >
> > The current response rate to the consultation is
> > pathetic, and made worse by the fact that probably
> > half those responses will be PRO LEGISLATION....
> Where are you getting your figures for the "response
> rate"? And on what are you basing your estimate that
> half of them will be against us? Although, frankly,
> if only half of the responses are reported as pro,
> then I think we'll have done pretty well. That means
> they have to observe a 50% opposed, and the reasons
> why.
> There's nothing on the Home Office page about numbers
> of responses.
> The pledgebank Pledge shows 37 have signed up so far,
> most of whom I recognise from this list or IC.
> ***
> The urgency that "We must do SOMEthing" must not give
> way to the lunacy that is "We must do ANYthing". If
> none of the options available are a good idea, then it
> is better to do nothing.
> Your "workable ideas", where they are reasonable and
> genuinely workable, I think are being done. Spamming
> people on IC or other BDSM boards is not a good idea.
> On IC, as has been pointed out, there is now a
> campaign banner leading the campaign website. Just
> about everything that is reasonable to do there is
> already done.
> As for alternative suggestions, perhaps it would be a
> worthwhile use of Backlash campaign funds to buy an
> advert in suitable publications?
> Ta,
> SnowdropExplodes
> ___________________________________________________________
> How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
> snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
AV8R, 09 Nov 2005 19:13:34
Yes, but as has been pointed out, if 10% of the population are into BDSM on some level, and 90% of the population are not, then 90% will have no idea that "sexual violence" encompasses BDSM and is completely different to necrophilia and bestiality.....
My point, is that the majority of people on a read through of the proposals, will think it is a good idea.
Particularly middle aged conservative family people, who are the majority of WHICH consumers.
Av8r
Author wrote:
> av8r0344@hotmail.com wrote:
> > I also note that WHICH computing magazine had a news item
> > giving the consultation link in this months issue.
> >
> > Their readers are the type of people that will respond on-line,
> > and will probably overwhelmingly support the legislation.
> Err, I read Which? (although not computing Which?) and I think most
> Which? readers are the type who will not fall for hype and rhetoric and
> will actually think about what's being proposed and examine the details
> because if they weren't that type they wouldn't read Which? at all.
> Cheers,
> Graham.
SnowdropExplodes, 09 Nov 2005 20:29:21
--- av8r0344@hotmail.com wrote:
> Yeah, look, for about the 100th time now, nobody is
> suggesting mass spamming people. Also, not all
> unsolicited mail (email or otherwise) is spam, and
> if so then every political party in britain is
> guilty of probably the biggest spam event in the
> country come election time, so lets drop this
> pontless argument re spam.
It's spam if they didn't ask for it and don't want to
read it. Whether that is a technically accurate
description of spam or not is neither here nor there;
all that matters is that is how it could easily be
perceived.
And that is all it takes to put someone off your
cause.
So stop trying to defend an action that was morally
wrong (in that it involved acting without people's
consent) and potentially damaging to the campaign as a
whole.
>
> Figures for the response rate are notified to
> respondents from the home office and scottish
> executive as each response is recieved.
>
> I'm sorry, but as IC has tens of thousands of
> members (someone said 70,000, not sure if this is
> accurate)and other groups must be another 20,000 or
> so, then a response to the consultation of 30 odd
> people in scotland, plus 100 odd in england, plus 37
> on the pledgebank (some of whom have already
> submitted it) so far really is fairly pathetic, and
> shows just how much more work there is to be done in
> the next 3 weeks.
Actually, you need to look at a comparison of what the
responses to consultations normally look like.
I did this within days of the consultation being
announced, digging out the most controversial-looking
issues from the previous consultations that the Home
Office website showed, to demonstrate how effective
writing a response to the paper could be.
I looked at three different proposals, of which 1
didn't even reach 50 responses, and only 1 had more
than 100 responses.
In each of these, responses from the general public
made up fewer than half the total responses. The
others tended to be responses from professionals who
would be involved in policing the new proposals, or
from campaign groups with special interest in the
proposals (campaign group submissions tended to number
around 10, IIRC).
So, let's have a look at what we've got:
At least 30 responses from this group, probably a lot
more, plus responses from people whom members of the
group have contacted that we can't number.
At least half a dozen established campaign or
special-interest groups such as FAC, Spanner Trust,
Libertarian Alliance etc.
At least one person in a position to make a submission
as an academic in a related area.
And still three weeks to go in which the number of
submissions by indivdual members of the public can be
increased.
That is a *strong* hand, and could even mean that, if
the responses from police forces, the CPS and the like
are discounted, we have a strong majority. Many of
"our" responses will be clearly-argued, have a strong
moral basis on the grounds of civil liberties and the
involvement of consenting adults, and be presenting
the views in rational, calm and measured ways. This
will make our case very difficult for the consultation
simply to ignore when weighed in the balance against
the views of those professional law-enforcement
bodies.
If we have our legal opinion from the QC in time for
that to be submitted (assuming it is favourable to our
case, of course) then we have another boulder to put
on our side of the scales.
>
> Common sense will tell you that the Jane Longhurst
> trust is just as active at getting people to respond
> to the consultation as we are...... And on top of
> that they also have a 35,000 + strong signed
> petition (could be 50,000 by the time they submit it
> in November). So I really dont think a 50/50
> response will remotely look good for us.
>
> Because at the end of the day it will be, 100 for,
> 100 against, and then 35,000 more for...
The petition is like weighing leaves against rocks.
35,000 leaves against 100 rocks.
We'll go collecting our own leaves for the balance
after December 2nd, organising petitions and the like
will be easier at that stage, but as has been pointed
out, we are not interested in playing a numbers game
with the "other side" because we don't think we could
win it anyway, and we think the strength of our
arguments may well be enough to tip the balance.
>
> At least if we mobilise several thousand responses,
> we could have some ammunition.....
Now you're talking rubbish. We are never ever going
to reach a thousand submissions to the consultation
process, and frankly, to win that battle, we don't
need to. As observed above, these consultations
never receive thousands of responses, and rarely
achieve three-figure numbers.
We might possibly persuade 1,000, or even 10,000,
people to write to their MP, but we have months in
which to achieve that.
The petition will be handed in to parliament fairly
soon, AIUI, and will cause a small stir and then
disappear. Our letters to MPs will stick for a lot
longer, and the consultation report, showing that a
large number of people and campaign organisations
opposed the proposals, will be ammunition we can use
again and again.
It is also worth pointing out that the JLT/JLC
grouping probably think that they have won this battle
already, and it is a lot harder to persuade people to
write in favour of any proposal than it is to persuade
them to write against it, simply because the
perception is that the people proposing it *want* to
do it anyway, and so need very little encouragement.
Remember, this is a LONG war we are preparing to
fight, and the process will take something like 18
months during which we will use every trick at our
disposal to increase public opposition to the proposed
laws, and certainly to increase opposition in the
Commons, the Lords and even the Judiciary.
Saying we need to motivate thousands of responses by
December 2nd is demanding the impossible, the
unnecessary and the Quixotic (in the worst sense of
that word). It leads to actions that are hugely
damaging to the future effectiveness of the campaign
and would put us on a poor moral standing in the eyes
of our target communities.
We are not going to be able to force awareness to grow
more quickly by trying to drag or push people into
taking part.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
Paul C. Dickie, 09 Nov 2005 21:23:53
In message ,
Lothario wrote:
>With reference to Another Thread, perhaps we could start "Which Censorship?"
Or, in relation to another participant, "Censorship Witch"?
--
< Paul >
AV8R, 09 Nov 2005 21:46:13
>Whether that is a technically accurate
> description of spam or not is neither here nor there;
> all that matters is that is how it could easily be
> perceived.
> And that is all it takes to put someone off your
> cause.
Then why do all the major parties engage in mass mailing and mass contact efforts?
They do it because it works.
For every person who is offended, there are 10 more rational people who see the point.
> So stop trying to defend an action that was morally
> wrong (in that it involved acting without people's
> consent) and potentially damaging to the campaign as a
> whole.
Pease don't try to overly dramatise this issue. This really has nothing to do with consent or being morally wrong.
Several other people have already pointed out that the overall effects of this from a statistical level are extremely likely to be positive, ie, far more people will appreciate the information than will be offended by the contact.
> Actually, you need to look at a comparison of what the
> responses to consultations normally look like.
> I looked at three different proposals, of which 1
> didn't even reach 50 responses, and only 1 had more
> than 100 responses.
Yes, we've all heard this argument before. It may have some very limited truth somewhere in it, but it is not the powerful be all and end all case so many make it out to be.
> In each of these, responses from the general public
> made up fewer than half the total responses. The
> others tended to be responses from professionals who
> would be involved in policing the new proposals, or
> from campaign groups with special interest in the
> proposals (campaign group submissions tended to number
> around 10, IIRC).
> So, let's have a look at what we've got:
Yes, but again, this is not really that relevant or important.
Perhaps you fail to realise that the govt doesn't really care what the consultation responses say.
This is all going to be about raw hard politics.... a reasoned argument will have no impact on Blair and Co.....
> At least 30 responses from this group, probably a lot
> more, plus responses from people whom members of the
> group have contacted that we can't number.
> At least half a dozen established campaign or
> special-interest groups such as FAC, Spanner Trust,
> Libertarian Alliance etc.
> At least one person in a position to make a submission
> as an academic in a related area.
> And still three weeks to go in which the number of
> submissions by indivdual members of the public can be
> increased.
But still incredibly low given the dire consequences to the community.
There isno practical reason that we should not have been able to get hundreds of responses in.....
But this repeated talk about "well, if we only get 100 respoinses that will be great" is not exactly motivating everyone to go out and respond.
And besides, we'll have to agree to disagree on this. The govt is so determined to push this through that unless the response is OVERWHELMINGLY against it, I really dont see we have much of a chance.
> That is a *strong* hand, and could even mean that, if
> the responses from police forces, the CPS and the like
> are discounted, we have a strong majority. Many of
> "our" responses will be clearly-argued, have a strong
> moral basis on the grounds of civil liberties and the
> involvement of consenting adults, and be presenting
> the views in rational, calm and measured ways. This
> will make our case very difficult for the consultation
> simply to ignore when weighed in the balance against
> the views of those professional law-enforcement
> bodies.
Again, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. This is one of the weakest hands I've ever seen such a large community come up with.
And this govt has already shown how little it cares about civil liberties.
> If we have our legal opinion from the QC in time for
> that to be submitted (assuming it is favourable to our
> case, of course) then we have another boulder to put
> on our side of the scales.
Yes, and it may equally be not in our favour. But regardless, I think it won't make much of a difference. The govt has masses of lawyers to find a way to make it legal.
> The petition is like weighing leaves against rocks.
> 35,000 leaves against 100 rocks.
Completely disagree. This is about politics, nothing else.
35,000 for, 100 against.
End of story.
> We'll go collecting our own leaves for the balance
> after December 2nd, organising petitions and the like
> will be easier at that stage,
Why? If it's so hard to do now, what makes it easier then?
And if it can be done then, then why have we wasted 3 months not doing it now?
but as has been pointed
> out, we are not interested in playing a numbers game
> with the "other side" because we don't think we could
> win it anyway, and we think the strength of our
> arguments may well be enough to tip the balance.
> >
Well, no, not exactly. You may not want to play a numbers game, but that doesn't mean we all dont.
There is a large number of backlash members who feel we MUST play a numbers game, and if we are to be successful then we must find a way of proving the size of the opposition. Whether thats through petitions, or polling, or letters, or whatever, at the end of the day this IS a numbers game, thats what politics is all about.
> Now you're talking rubbish. We are never ever going
> to reach a thousand submissions to the consultation
> process, and frankly, to win that battle, we don't
> need to.
Well of course we won't if thats your attitude. But there is no earthly practical reason why we can't if everyone puts 100% into it.
If we as an active community of 100,000 plus, and a passive community of millions more, cant even get 1000 people to fill in a few boxes, how seriously do you think we'll be taken?
As observed above, these consultations
> never receive thousands of responses, and rarely
> achieve three-figure numbers.
All the more reaosn to aim for it with this one.
> We might possibly persuade 1,000, or even 10,000,
> people to write to their MP, but we have months in
> which to achieve that.
If we can get 10,000 people to write to MP's, why cant we get 1000 to fill in an ANONYMOUS consultation that you can do online in 30 minutes?
> The petition will be handed in to parliament fairly
> soon, AIUI, and will cause a small stir and then
> disappear. Our letters to MPs will stick for a lot
> longer, and the consultation report, showing that a
> large number of people and campaign organisations
> opposed the proposals, will be ammunition we can use
> again and again.
I relly think you dangerously overestimate our hand.
And what on earth makes you think JLT arent doing all the same stuff we are, but clearly with better organisation and a bigger support base.
> It is also worth pointing out that the JLT/JLC
> grouping probably think that they have won this battle
> already, and it is a lot harder to persuade people to
> write in favour of any proposal than it is to persuade
> them to write against it, simply because the
> perception is that the people proposing it *want* to
> do it anyway, and so need very little encouragement.
That doesnt make any sense. Campaigners like this are very motivated, and have a much better response rate than we seem to have.
> Remember, this is a LONG war we are preparing to
> fight, and the process will take something like 18
> months during which we will use every trick at our
> disposal to increase public opposition to the proposed
> laws, and certainly to increase opposition in the
> Commons, the Lords and even the Judiciary.
Finally, something we agree on.
> Saying we need to motivate thousands of responses by
> December 2nd is demanding the impossible, the
> unnecessary and the Quixotic (in the worst sense of
> that word).
Again, there is no reason why we cannot, other than complacency from some misguided advice re 100 being enough.
It leads to actions that are hugely
> damaging to the future effectiveness of the campaign
> and would put us on a poor moral standing in the eyes
> of our target communities.
What, like those of every major political party in the UK.
Pleeease, give me a break.
> We are not going to be able to force awareness to grow
> more quickly by trying to drag or push people into
> taking part.
No, but we certainly are going to be able to raise awareness and motivate response through effective and aggressive communications.
Something we do not yet have.
Av8r
SnowdropExplodes, 09 Nov 2005 23:28:08
--- av8r0344@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
> >Whether that is a technically accurate
> > description of spam or not is neither here nor
> there;
> > all that matters is that is how it could easily be
> > perceived.
> > And that is all it takes to put someone off your
> > cause.
>
>
> Then why do all the major parties engage in mass
> mailing and mass contact efforts?
>
> They do it because it works.
>
> For every person who is offended, there are 10 more
> rational people who see the point.
That's your opinion. I understood the basic
principle of mass-mailing to be that 1% actually read
the stuff, of which maybe 10% actually do anything
about it.
Furthermore, the political parties have a legitimacy
through their established nature and large
support-base, that we don't have.
> > So stop trying to defend an action that was
> morally
> > wrong (in that it involved acting without people's
> > consent) and potentially damaging to the campaign
> as a
> > whole.
>
> Pease don't try to overly dramatise this issue.
> This really has nothing to do with consent or being
> morally wrong.
>
> Several other people have already pointed out that
> the overall effects of this from a statistical level
> are extremely likely to be positive, ie, far more
> people will appreciate the information than will be
> offended by the contact.
That is, again, a matter of opinion. The posts I've
seen have all been from flawed analogies, and I repeat
that there is a moral dimension to this, and the ends
do not justify the means.
>
>
>
>
> > Actually, you need to look at a comparison of what
> the
> > responses to consultations normally look like.
> > I looked at three different proposals, of which 1
> > didn't even reach 50 responses, and only 1 had
> more
> > than 100 responses.
>
>
> Yes, we've all heard this argument before. It may
> have some very limited truth somewhere in it, but it
> is not the powerful be all and end all case so many
> make it out to be.
We've heard this argument from the professionals and
those actually involved in the government process.
>
> Perhaps you fail to realise that the govt doesn't
> really care what the consultation responses say.
Then why bother writing to the consultation at all?
The consultation is our chance to put to them the
calm, reasoned, rational case against the proposals,
based on the arguments in the Backlash Mission
Statement and whatever personal points individual
respondents feel inclined to make.
The point is, the consultation is about quality, not
just quantity.
> But still incredibly low given the dire consequences
> to the community.
>
> There isno practical reason that we should not have
> been able to get hundreds of responses in.....
Yes there is. People will spare ten seconds to sign
a petition, or 30 seconds to post a form letter to
their MP after filling in their name and address, but
more than that tends to result in "I'll do it later,
when I have time" and the like.
>
> But this repeated talk about "well, if we only get
> 100 respoinses that will be great" is not exactly
> motivating everyone to go out and respond.
We have to be realistic. 1,000 is pie-in-the-sky
talk and always has been. I hoped for maybe 200, and
we may yet get that, since there are still three weeks
to go, but I recognise that 100 is more than the
average, and is a very good result.
>
> And besides, we'll have to agree to disagree on
> this. The govt is so determined to push this
> through that unless the response is OVERWHELMINGLY
> against it, I really dont see we have much of a
> chance.
Then you might as well give up, because nothing we can
do will convince the government that there is an
overwhelming opposition to this proposal.
> > The petition is like weighing leaves against
> rocks.
> > 35,000 leaves against 100 rocks.
>
> Completely disagree. This is about politics,
> nothing else.
>
> 35,000 for, 100 against.
>
> End of story.
This flies in the face of every piece of advice I have
ever heard about making a political campaigning point,
including the advice this group has received from
those actually involved in the government process.
A petition is very good for immediate, short-term
publicity, but in terms of swaying legislators has
little effect. A letter to one's MP, however, is a
much more potent force; and a letter to the
consultation paper we are told, is even more potent.
Why is this? Because a signature on a petition is
one person in the shopping mall who looked at it and
said, "well, I'm not against you so I may as well lend
my support" (in other words, it is in no way a strong
indicator of a person's position on a subject) whereas
a letter to the MP or a response to the consultation
paper is one person who said, "I'm angry enough about
this that I'm going to do something about it, I'm
going to spend an hour or two setting down my thoughts
and making sure people know I care".
Besides which, there is nothing to stop you going out
and collecting signatures on a petition yourself, if
you think petition signatures are so important.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
AV8R, 10 Nov 2005 00:02:14
> That's your opinion. I understood the basic
> principle of mass-mailing to be that 1% actually read
> the stuff, of which maybe 10% actually do anything
> about it.
And if we were takling about the general public, your understanding might be somewhat accurate.
But we are talking about focused interest groups, where the response rate to an effective communication is likely to be nearer 15%-20%.
> Furthermore, the political parties have a legitimacy
> through their established nature and large
> support-base, that we don't have.
Again, to the narrow special interst groups (BDSM'rs) that we are talking about mass contacting, backlash (or it's constituent groups) can and do have a legitimacy.
> That is, again, a matter of opinion. The posts I've
> seen have all been from flawed analogies, and I repeat
> that there is a moral dimension to this, and the ends
> do not justify the means.
Tell that to the people sitting in jail, who's lives are ruined, if this passes.
I think they would disagree.
> We've heard this argument from the professionals and
> those actually involved in the government process.
> >
No, we've heard this opinion from a few people marginally involved in bdsm groups, or amateur level politics..
A professional lobbyist or campaign strategist would give a different opinion. And I know this for a fact, because I've asked one.
> Then why bother writing to the consultation at all?
To show the level and intensity of opposition.
> The consultation is our chance to put to them the
> calm, reasoned, rational case against the proposals,
> based on the arguments in the Backlash Mission
> Statement and whatever personal points individual
> respondents feel inclined to make.
> The point is, the consultation is about quality, not
> just quantity.
Perhaps, but it also could have been a far greater opportunity that we have clearly missed so far.
> Yes there is. People will spare ten seconds to sign
> a petition, or 30 seconds to post a form letter to
> their MP after filling in their name and address, but
> more than that tends to result in "I'll do it later,
> when I have time" and the like.
Well, they'll have plenty of time to reflect on that poor choice during their time in jail I guess.
But seriously, there is still no reason why a solid grass roots campaign, with a network of local and regional organisers for every place in the country, could not have got 1000 responses in.
> We have to be realistic. 1,000 is pie-in-the-sky
> talk and always has been. I hoped for maybe 200, and
> we may yet get that, since there are still three weeks
> to go, but I recognise that 100 is more than the
> average, and is a very good result.
Theres a big difference between being realistic and pessimistic.
And the facts are, that the tone has always been "100 responses would be great", which is unnaceptable.
This discourages people from responding and is not the motivating communication we need to get the maximum response.
> Then you might as well give up, because nothing we can
> do will convince the government that there is an
> overwhelming opposition to this proposal.
Thats very defeatist.
> This flies in the face of every piece of advice I have
> ever heard about making a political campaigning point,
> including the advice this group has received from
> those actually involved in the government process.
See earlier points, but 20 years ago that might be correct. The political world of today is wholly different.
And requires big money and powerful lobbyists to succeed.
> A petition is very good for immediate, short-term
> publicity, but in terms of swaying legislators has
> little effect. A letter to one's MP, however, is a
> much more potent force; and a letter to the
> consultation paper we are told, is even more potent.
All the more reason to push for 1000 plus responses to the consultation.
> Besides which, there is nothing to stop you going out
> and collecting signatures on a petition yourself, if
> you think petition signatures are so important.
Which, if I'm the only one doing so, would be a waste of my time, as this is such a numbers game.
A final thought for you.
There are 300 active members of the backlash group. (out of 70,000 plus on IC)
Had each collected only 1 signature a day for the 100 days of this campaign, that would be 30,000 signatures.
Had each convinced only one person a week to fill in a response to the consultation, that would be over 3,000 responses.
I know I could get a signature a day (if it had a point), and convince 10 people to respond, (I've already done so).
But it's of little use if the other 299 people aren't doing the same thing.
And if you really think that it's an unrealistic expectation, that out of this community of 70,000 active BDSM'rs we cant muster 300 people to spend 5 minutes a day on this for 3 months, then we truly are screwed.
And I'll start getting out the emigration info tomorrow.
Av8r
Sue, 10 Nov 2005 01:39:54
I received confirmation of my response to the Scottish Executive one week ago and I was response number 30.
«No Name Set», 11 Nov 2005 18:16:18
given the well-known facet of human nature that doesn't do
things until the deadline looms, I suspect there is still time
to get a flood in as closing date comes closer.
I suspect the people who run these consultations are used to
this phenomenon too.
One of the people who's been to the London meetings is a civil
servant who earns her living writing consultation documents, and
has said a lot about the weight given to the responses. Maybe-
if she's still here - she could tell us whether it is usual for
people to reply late on?
Let us not underestimate the impact of things people say in
responses to these consultations. I've seen legislation
incorporate points I've raised in response to the related
consultation before now. Of course, I can't say I was the
*only* person who made those points, but they have been noted.
In terms of contacting others: does anyone know the b.com
admins? - and could they request an item be put into the weekly
newsletters (around "Deadline is approaching"), or the news bit
about a quarter of the way down the main page, or a banner, or
something?? - maybe someone who's written an article for a
newsletter could ask for it to be posted on the site? Similarly
the alt.... whatever it is ... site? SOrry if it's been done
(my browser keeps seizing up in b/com recently, dunno why).
--
Rosemary
Paul Tavener, 13 Nov 2005 18:00:08
Most of the responses will go in in the last week. That's what tends to happen. People leave it because they can but when the end is in sight it focuses the mind (as do those trying to get people to respond)
Author wrote:
> given the well-known facet of human nature that doesn't do
> things until the deadline looms, I suspect there is still time
> to get a flood in as closing date comes closer.
> I suspect the people who run these consultations are used to
> this phenomenon too.
> One of the people who's been to the London meetings is a civil
> servant who earns her living writing consultation documents, and
> has said a lot about the weight given to the responses. Maybe-
> if she's still here - she could tell us whether it is usual for
> people to reply late on?
> Let us not underestimate the impact of things people say in
> responses to these consultations. I've seen legislation
> incorporate points I've raised in response to the related
> consultation before now. Of course, I can't say I was the
> *only* person who made those points, but they have been noted.
> In terms of contacting others: does anyone know the b.com
> admins? - and could they request an item be put into the weekly
> newsletters (around "Deadline is approaching"), or the news bit
> about a quarter of the way down the main page, or a banner, or
> something?? - maybe someone who's written an article for a
> newsletter could ask for it to be posted on the site? Similarly
> the alt.... whatever it is ... site? SOrry if it's been done
> (my browser keeps seizing up in b/com recently, dunno why).
> --
> Rosemary