new petition re driven grouse shooting (1 Viewer)

[Mary]

Maybe everyone could send their MP an e-mail asap, and ask them to forward it on to DEFRA as well. It's easy via this site https://www.theyworkforyou.com/
The more people do this following on from the petition, the more they will realise we are really serious!

 

[Farnboro John]

The basic message here is that the government couldn't give a proverbial about our native wildlife. I've had similar from my MP about the Buzzard-killing affair. I used to know some civil servants who had to deal with Defra in their day job and their considered opinion of them was that they were a totally incompetent bunch of buffoons who couldn't manage anything efficiently. I've not seen anything to persuade me that my friends were mistaken. Of course, all civil servants and agencies exist to prop up MPs' tottering reputations, so it would have been naive to have expected any different response. But it does underline the impression that all the government cares about is money. They really do know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Actually all civil servants exist to provide the best services they can for you, for the amount you agree to be taxed, despite the interference of the politicians you vote for. Any time you want to give up voting and allow the professionals to work uninterrupted and undiverted by elected slaves to vested interests, not to mention unthreatened with expulsion to the private sector so that more of your taxes can be diverted to profit-making organisations, all civil servants will be very happy.

Cheers

John

 

[Jack Dawe]

Actually all civil servants exist to provide the best services they can for you

Actually, no they don't. They exist to enact the policies of the government of the day. To the best of their ability, yes, but they are not working primarily for us. They are the ones who draft the anodyne, dismissive replies that we get to complaints we direct to our MPs.

 

[Farnboro John]

Actually, no they don't. They exist to enact the policies of the government of the day. To the best of their ability, yes, but they are not working primarily for us. They are the ones who draft the anodyne, dismissive replies that we get to complaints we direct to our MPs.

You vote, don't you? The government of the day is chosen by the people. It works for the people. Civil servants are the executive, while Parliament enacts laws based on manifestos - on which you have voted. However, Parliament frequently changes its mind, makes concessions to vested interests (not voters) and so on, most of which balls up carefully constructed programmes.... It's almost always politicians' indecision (or reversal of already taken decisions) that causes waste. Its voters that let them get away with it.

The other main cause of waste is the Daily Mail test: if its efficient but would allow the tabloids to scream about civil servants (God forbid) getting perks - as in the 80s proposal to hold all external courses in the Med because it would be cheaper than any UK venue - it doesn't happen.

Its a long time since I drafted a PQ reply, but you get the question you've asked answered. If however you've written to your MP and he writes back without placing a PQ, you get party policy which has not been near a civil servant. That's what I found writing to mine about foxhunting. He had the nerve to describe his view as a matter of conscience! I shan't bother again.

John

 

[Jack Dawe]

Its a long time since I drafted a PQ reply, but you get the question you've asked answered.

I didn't when I wrote to my MP about the Buzzard matter. As usual with these letters he passed it on to the relevant body (Natural England in this case) to draft a reply for him to sign. This took the form of a letter bearing the name of the Chief Executive of Natural England, but actually signed on his behalf by one of his underlings, who had merely cut-and-pasted a statement from NE's website (which I had already read) and which totally ignored all the questions I had actually asked. I wonder if the signatory had even read my letter properly. I wrote back to my MP pointing out what a shoddy, unprofessional reply it was and saying that I was dismayed that he had thought it appropriate to put his name to it. He promised to look into it further when parliament resumed after the summer break, but he hasn't. The whole exchange was just a fob-off - which of course they always are, but in this case it was even more blatant than usual. It hardly matters whether my MP's failure to follow up was an oversight or deliberate. The message is clearly that he doesn't care. If he did he would have made sure he did something. Civil servants' prime concern is to stop the mess hitting the fan. So long as they succeed in doing that the government can enact whatever policies it sees fit and not care what disastrous results transpire because everything is hunky-dory. And when they fail to achieve the impossible and the mess does hit the fan then, more often than not nowadays, it's deemed to be the civil servants' fault. You can no longer assume that the minister will always take responsibility for his policies.

 

[Farnboro John]

I didn't when I wrote to my MP about the Buzzard matter. As usual with these letters he passed it on to the relevant body (Natural England in this case) to draft a reply for him to sign. This took the form of a letter bearing the name of the Chief Executive of Natural England, but actually signed on his behalf by one of his underlings, who had merely cut-and-pasted a statement from NE's website (which I had already read) and which totally ignored all the questions I had actually asked. I wonder if the signatory had even read my letter properly. I wrote back to my MP pointing out what a shoddy, unprofessional reply it was and saying that I was dismayed that he had thought it appropriate to put his name to it. He promised to look into it further when parliament resumed after the summer break, but he hasn't. The whole exchange was just a fob-off - which of course they always are, but in this case it was even more blatant than usual. It hardly matters whether my MP's failure to follow up was an oversight or deliberate. The message is clearly that he doesn't care. If he did he would have made sure he did something. Civil servants' prime concern is to stop the mess hitting the fan. So long as they succeed in doing that the government can enact whatever policies it sees fit and not care what disastrous results transpire because everything is hunky-dory. And when they fail to achieve the impossible and the mess does hit the fan then, more often than not nowadays, it's deemed to be the civil servants' fault. You can no longer assume that the minister will always take responsibility for his policies.

Some of what you write is correct. Civil servants' prime concern is not to stop the turd/turbine collision. It is to be accurate. Such is not the ambition of politicians.... You are certainly correct when you say most stuff is deemed to be the fault of civil servants, and it is tiresome when not only does nobody who should do so stick up for them but also people who ought to know better go along with the whole civil servant bashing thing as if they are Sun readers.

John

 

[Jack Dawe]

Civil servants' prime concern is not to stop the turd/turbine collision. It is to be accurate.

They are employed to make things work which in turn means that they most certainly are required to keep the proverbial from hitting the fan. I overstated the case by describing it as their prime concern. In practice their prime concern is to keep their own noses clean. This is par for the course with any large organisation, public or private. At any hint of blame they all don teflon armour and it does not always translate into telling the truth.

 

[Farnboro John]

They are employed to make things work which in turn means that they most certainly are required to keep the proverbial from hitting the fan. I overstated the case by describing it as their prime concern. In practice their prime concern is to keep their own noses clean. This is par for the course with any large organisation, public or private. At any hint of blame they all don teflon armour and it does not always translate into telling the truth.

Again you are wide of the mark. These days civil servants are effectively gagged by policies that require even the SME on any subject to have their words run through specialist media ops people before issue: appearances in the media if unscripted are content cleared in advance with the same people.

This increasing politicisation of the civil service is brought to you by your elected politicians, who are after all in charge.

But do not confuse the organisation with the people. Civil servants would love to tell the public how it really is, though in many front-line positions they might have to rethink the "civil" part of their title first.

John

 

[Jack Dawe]

Again you are wide of the mark. These days civil servants are effectively gagged by policies that require even the SME on any subject to have their words run through specialist media ops people before issue: appearances in the media if unscripted are content cleared in advance with the same people.

This increasing politicisation of the civil service is brought to you by your elected politicians, who are after all in charge.

But do not confuse the organisation with the people. Civil servants would love to tell the public how it really is, though in many front-line positions they might have to rethink the "civil" part of their title first.

John

Your experience is evidently very different from mine - which, given the diversity of mindsets across the various civil service departments, is quite understandable. So far as the ordinary voter in the street is concerned (and that's me) civil service replies are certainly not "run through specialist media ops people". Replies to MPs' letters, which is what I am talking about, are typically drafted by employees of Executive Officer or Higher Executive Officer grade and sent directly to the MP's office for him/her to sign. In my day job I saw many and they all could have been précis'd as "Shut the **** up". And are you really suggesting that large organisations, civil service or otherwise, do not massage the truth to protect their public image? If so, I can assure you that you are mistaken.

 

[Farnboro John]

Your experience is evidently very different from mine - which, given the diversity of mindsets across the various civil service departments, is quite understandable. So far as the ordinary voter in the street is concerned (and that's me) civil service replies are certainly not "run through specialist media ops people". Replies to MPs' letters, which is what I am talking about, are typically drafted by employees of Executive Officer or Higher Executive Officer grade and sent directly to the MP's office for him/her to sign. In my day job I saw many and they all could have been précis'd as "Shut the **** up". And are you really suggesting that large organisations, civil service or otherwise, do not massage the truth to protect their public image? If so, I can assure you that you are mistaken.

There are straightforward checks and balances in the British system that prevent abuse of the truth. One of them is the channelling of replies through Parliament: being found out lying to Parliament is a world of hurt for politicians, let alone career civil servants.

Of course there can be economy with the truth: it is unlikely that government will gratuitously answer a question that has not been asked, so like wording a wish granted by a genie, wording a PQ requires skill.

But in the end, the reason British democracy is as stable as it is, is that the system keeps everybody pretty honest. My own experience of individual questioners is that there is a breed that having been given an honest answer that they don't like, will keep banging their heads against the brick wall until they are instructed to stop as having provably become a vexatious correspondent.

This is a separate issue from the government of the day essentially wanting people asking legitimate questions to stop doing so because the questions are inconvenient - and this is all too common with the current government and conservation issues, because they are mediaeval barbarians. But the barbarity is a party political matter and not a departmental executive one.

John

 

[Jack Dawe]

This exchange is pointless since you are intent on discussing something entirely different to the matter I raised. Parliament as a body does not get involved in simple MPs' letters.

 

[Farnboro John]

This exchange is pointless since you are intent on discussing something entirely different to the matter I raised. Parliament as a body does not get involved in simple MPs' letters.

If a civil servant acting for their Minister (as they are doing automatically, at any grade, when on their professional business) lies to an MP then they are lying to Parliament and can be pursued for doing so. No MP will be happy if they feel a civil servant is lying to them! That is why you write to your MP with a question and not directly to the Department (though you can also do the latter under FOI, in which case the Information Commissioner will impartially uphold and pursue your rights should you think you have been short-changed.)

I don't know how long ago you were drafting responses to MPs but these days central control of civil servants' communications with the outside world is very tight and (partly because the civil service has dumbed down a grade or two in the last ten years) conducted through higher grades and more central offices than previously, even if fact-finding and initial drafting still takes place at the coalface.

I am still on topic. You are dissatisfied with my response and beginning to suggest I am avoiding the issue. This is not unusual, as I have indicated.

John

 

[rosbifs]

Whilst watching a bunch of shooters, in the distance, at the weekend I was surprised by the mixed response in the cafe. One lady was completely against the 'toffs' and hated them being there, a few took pictures of all the range rovers as they drove past, another started talking about the money they bring in but couldn't reply to the killing of everything else, one saying how stupid that they breed a foreign bird, pheasant, to then be shot etc.

It was interesting not to get too involved but it was interesting none the less. These were none birders talking about a bird issue but most of the discussion revolved around the status, social side and only one time person mentioned the birds! No one had a grasp of what was going on - I expected more from a couple of them but Otherwise you can't really expect more but th class issue alone will not get driven grouse shooting banned!

 

[John Cantelo]

Returning to the central issue, please note that the debate on driven grouse shooting starts this afternoon at around 4.15 and can be seen at http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/0b841a46-eb3d-44b3-83b7-9500482b6d92
For those undecided, or who want an update, Mark Avery has written three posts on his blog this morning (by 10.00) on the topic (does the man ever sleep?) see http://markavery.info/blog/ These three blogs highlight some of the written evidence presented to the committee (further details of which form the 'meat' of previous blogs). Evidence from a former gamekeeper, wildlife police officer(s), bird societies and raptor experts present damning evidence that the industry rests on persistent, widespread and systemic law-breaking. Not surprising since it's authoritatively estimated that only 1% crimes are discovered and of that 1% only 5% result in a conviction; in other words, even the dimmest of offenders will almost certainly get away with it.

 

[Boom]

Nice impartial debate, knew it was going to be when that Old Vampire stood up and announced what a "keen shot" he was.

 

[IAN JAMES THOMPSON]

The debate on driven Grouse shooting this afternoons in Parliament has certainly been very much in favour of driven Grouse shooting with only about 2 MP''s speaking against driven Grouse Shooting. It's very depressing indeed.
Ian.

 

[John Cantelo]

The debate on driven Grouse shooting this afternoons in Parliament has certainly been very much in favour of driven Grouse shooting with only about 2 MP''s speaking against driven Grouse Shooting. It's very depressing indeed.
Ian.

Absolutely. Only Angela Smith (although she was far too even-handed) & Kerry McCarthy (fiery and to the point) really addressed the key issue of illegal persecution during the debate with Rachael Maskell doing so in her summing up (and mentioning Dr Ruth Tingay's written evidence in the process). All Labour MPs. I gather Caroline Lucas also spoke but I missed her contribution. Most of the remainder simply trotted out the usual banalities about gamekeepers being the true conservationists as if they never noticed they're responsible for 75% of wildlife crime. The damning written evidence of former police wildlife officers, bird monitoring groups, scientists, etc., etc. seems to have passed them by.

 

[Farnboro John]

Absolutely. Only Angela Smith (although she was far too even-handed) & Kerry McCarthy (fiery and to the point) really addressed the key issue of illegal persecution during the debate with Rachael Maskell doing so in her summing up (and mentioning Dr Ruth Tingay's written evidence in the process). All Labour MPs. I gather Caroline Lucas also spoke but I missed her contribution. Most of the remainder simply trotted out the usual banalities about gamekeepers being the true conservationists as if they never noticed they're responsible for 75% of wildlife crime. The damning written evidence of former police wildlife officers, bird monitoring groups, scientists, etc., etc. seems to have passed them by.

Well, don't vote for them then.

John

 

[rosbifs]

Just read the transcript - what a nightmare!
Flooding because it rained a lot, voyeurism, 1500 jobs, protecting the enviroment, leave it to the professionals that work amongst it etc etc etc...

Did we really expect anything else? There is not going to be any change for a long time!

 

[Andy Adcock]

I've posted the transcript under the news section as it seems there are three places this could fit, there, here or conservation.

I've suggested doing away with the conservation thread and having it all under news as they both serve almost the same purpose?


Andy