wrote:
>From an Informed Consent posting
>3 Dec 05, 9:49 PM
>redcat
>UK, 2 yrs clare wrote:
>Really? Where did you see that?
>Edit: Home Office webpage still says today is the closing date.
>
>redcat wrote:
>
>its probably posted elsewhere but the timelimit has been extended by
>about a week.. so if you missed the post today...never fear!
>
>Manniq rang up as he was getting close to deadline and they said that
>was the case.
>
>r
>
I see that they've been meddling with the 'consultation document' web-
page yet again:
On 21/11/05, a section of the source code read:
content="2006-02-26" />
Note the 'created' and 'modified' dates. Now, the same section reads:
content="2006-05-27" />
Why was this page completely rewritten? Did it really need a rewrite to
insert a link to the PDF version of the (lately missing) response form?
Response_Doc.pdf?view=Binary>
And were they really so stupid as to suppose nobody would notice?
--
< Paul >
Teddy, 04 Dec 2005 03:32:39
Only if it's intended as "sexual material", of course!
There's more than an element of surreality to this whole business...
Author wrote:
> Might a three-line whipping result in an image Gormless wouldn't like?
Paul C. Dickie, 04 Dec 2005 04:17:51
In message <2016223.1133667156710.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
>, Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>Author wrote:
>> Might a three-line whipping result in an image Gormless wouldn't like?
>
>Only if it's intended as "sexual material", of course!
Did Harvey Proctor experience penile tumescence during parliamentary
divisions, or was that just from having glimpsed the *ankles* of his
'glorious' Leaderene?
>There's more than an element of surreality to this whole business...
If one is to believe that the 'consultation document' is concerned with
polishing CVs and, possibly, other things too, perhaps you mean Dadaism?
--
< Paul >
UKR, 04 Dec 2005 06:25:05
Author wrote:
> In message <2016223.1133667156710.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
> >, Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >Author wrote:
> >> Might a three-line whipping result in an image Gormless wouldn't like?
> >
> >Only if it's intended as "sexual material", of course!
> Did Harvey Proctor experience penile tumescence during parliamentary
> divisions, or was that just from having glimpsed the *ankles* of his
> 'glorious' Leaderene?
> >There's more than an element of surreality to this whole business...
> If one is to believe that the 'consultation document' is concerned with
> polishing CVs and, possibly, other things too, perhaps you mean Dadaism?
> --
> < Paul >
It is indeed most perplexing.
Thank you for logging the modified source codes paul - interesting reading.
On the Home Office website the 'consultation page' is up with the attendant pdf files, but the link to the online response form points straight back at the 'consultation page'
On the Scottish Executive website the consultation document link has already been struck from the current consultations section and moved to the closed consultations section.
Make of it what you will - all we can do is wait till Monday when it will be possible to call them and find out.
I just feel sorry for the poor receptioninst who's going to be wondering what's going on with a load of forcefully assertive 'I want to know what's happening!' calls first thing Monday morning - and that'll just be the subbies!
UKrudegirl
Paul Tavener, 04 Dec 2005 19:11:53
I sent the following to them on the 2nd December. Don't know if that had anuy effect? I think a lot of people have complained so they probably want to be seen to have behaved reasonably.
Consultation process complaint
Dear sir,
I would like to make a complaint concerning the manner in which the Home Office has conducted the the public consultation over the possession of extreme pornography. I would be greatful if you could pass this letter to whoever is appropriate.
1. Option 4 “take no action” appears to have been included as window dressing. It is clear from the tone of the consultation document that the decision has already been made to legislate on this matter regardless of what people think. Consultations should be held prior to the formation of policy so that respondents can make meaningful contribution to the formation of that policy. To do otherwise makes a mockery of the process of consulting the public.
2. The consultation process appears to have been directly or indirectly hijacked by one particular group namely supporters of Elizebeth Longhurst. Rather than being an attempt to present a balanced viewpoint for public debate, the consultation has been used as a vehicle to promote the viewpoint of this group to the exclusion of all others. The use of emotive language was particularly unhelpful when discussing a complex subject of which there is little public understanding.
3. No attempt appears to have been made during the preparation of the consultation to consider the perspective of groups who might be opposed to these measures or whom might have been directly affected by them. As a result of this the consultation process will have been much less effective. Many individuals and organisations will have spent time repeatedly explaining the same points that could easily have been addressed and dealt with at an earlier stage.
I would also draw your attention to some problems that I have experienced with the Home Office website. Although well presented there have been serious problems where finding documents is concerned.
Appendix D of the consultation it states that:
The full code of practice is available at:
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/regulation/Consultation/introduction.htm
My browser was unable to find this page.
Using the Search facility provided on the Home Office web site and searching for “CONSULTATION CODE” provided a number of items the third of which looked promising “Code of Practice on Home Office consultations”
Unfortunately it links here:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-bad-driving-2005/
I would suggest that the link is refreshed and another link to this document might be of value here:http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/haveyoursay/
I would add that the consultation document itself was unavailable for 2 weeks during the consultation and that the link at the top of the consultation page to the consultation response form is in fact a link to itself.
(http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-extreme-porn-300805/)
Best regards
Paul Tavener
Paul C. Dickie, 05 Dec 2005 06:48:03
In message <4233586.1133723118251.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
>, admin@ofwatch.org.uk wrote:
>Using the Search facility provided on the Home Office web site and searching for
>\x{201C}CONSULTATION CODE\x{201D} provided a number of items the third of which looked
>promising \x{201C}Code of Practice on Home Office consultations\x{201D}
>
>Unfortunately it links here:
>http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-bad-driving-2005/
I'd say the 'extreme pornography consultation' could hardly have been
driven by worse considerations -- wouldn't you?
--
< Paul >
«No Name Set», 05 Dec 2005 14:27:41
Errrm..... so to point out the prosaic....
I rather suspect that the HO department who deal with
consultations are used to responses continuing to drift in for a
while after the official closing date. Delayed in the post,
posted last minute, even posted late by people trying to sneak
under the wire (as it were).
So they're used to expecting to get some in just after the
official deadline, and so work on the basis of giving an
official deadline and actually taking in those that arrive a
little after that.
No doubt Hessie, if she's around, will know.
--
Rosemary