Assumptions

Following on from the previous post. The approach of the conservation organisations including Sheffield Wildlife Trust has always been observable to those of us who have tried to engage in discussions on how to manage places like Blacka. It is that they are the designated landowners, public land or not, and that in all essentials they must be allowed to make the vital decisions. And on from there the assumption is that they don't have to keep people informed because many decisions are matters of policy and practice within their operations. Up to a point if you were living in the world of forty years ago, just conceivably there might have been something in this but for the fact that it is public land and that it is used by the public every day and that there was always an issue from the start about the handing over from SCC to SWT an organisation not required to be transparent and accountable as local authorities must. Also SCC itself had appeared to respond to public reservations by pointing to arrangements for consultation. Additionally there is now a catalogue of sundry misleading statements coming from all of the conservation industry players and SCC itself leading to a presumption of the need to view any statement with scepticism.

Consequently those attempting to hold the wildlife trust to account must be justified in pressing harder for genuine scrutiny of each decision and each item of work done or not done.

I’m now more than ever convinced that there is a coordinated attempt to consult with less and less discussion and debate.
Informed discussion is a pre requisite of democratic processes and those who try to evade their responsibility to provide it are almost certainly trying to pull a fast one.

It could be argued that it’s all of a piece with the general brainwashing of the population that we’ve seen in recent years on countryside matters. All the cultural landscapes and managed land stuff that has been widely hyped on farming and countryside programmes is part of it as has been the overwhelming number of news and magaziney pieces on television originating in press releases from the conservation industry and recycled by lazy journalism

The claim is that the process should be designed around those people who so lack confidence that they are afraid to engage in discussion. For their benefit, they claim, the whole process must be totally reshaped and the traditional meeting style in which people gather round to discuss and debate key issues must be abandoned.

Why is it so important for them - the consultation managers? Is there any real evidence that there are people attending consultation meetings who are teeming with good and relevant things to say but not nearly enough confidence to speak up?

Some of us can remember having to nerve ourselves in the past but have since worked hard to develop a thicker hide. Are we now to be marginalised because of the new process? This is managers at work again controlling the responses. They hate answering for their sins and will do anything at all to avoid discussion and accounting for their poliies and practices. The process consists of a 'workshop' style in which the managers tell people to write down their thoughts on post-it notes. Most of the time is spent on this and the rest of the time on the manager explaining the process. The clever manager will ensure that anything unwelcome is at least balanced by what they want to hear when they collate the information later. And the greatest advantage for them is that it limits the debate and discussion of things they would prefer not to talk about.They have of course worked out that those lacking confidence are also more likely to be those who will fall for their trickery and be more easily managed.

They really are very calculating. I find myself admiring them more (but only in the way you admire a ruthless and successful villain) and liking them even less