Sunday 5 July 2009

Doing - here in Ulverston

If one agrees that the problem is with the way the civil servants get entrenched in their views then one way is to open up dialogue with the public.

This could lead to greater job satisfaction as long as the public didn't keep thoughtlessly slagging them off.

One example of this is with the police force. Very few people have a good word for them. Yet I have found that they are a really good set of guys trying to do a very difficult job. Granted there will be some that aren't as enthusiastic as we might expect. But just imagine being in a job when one gets continuous hassle and very little appreciation. Ever since I've given them some appreciation on this blog I've got on well with them and I now regularly get excellent honest 'off the record' communication with them. This is not because I've been easy on them with the things I've said occasionally.

In the long term I find I build really healthy relationships by giving honest reactions to people (this is not seen by most as the way a good politician operates but then I'm trying to be true to myself and not an imitation of someone else). I try to tell people exactly what I think and this is includes giving praise where it is due.

So back to improved communication.

First we have to get the officers to give us truthful answers to our questions. Many avoid contact unless you persist.

Second we could encourage the public to communicate directly with them. At the moment we leave this to our councillors but often they do a very surficial job and are manipulated by the officers. The officers are often laying down policy not the reverse.

The way I've decided to do this is the form smallish very localised groups that come from an identifiable area. Having tried this once I found we got a group of talkers who wanted to sit and dream of what could be done but not actually do much.

So I'm now tackling the group formation differently. Get together a group of doers rather than talkers. This doing can be anything and my interest is pottery. I already run three weekly groups of potters in my workshop and they are great people. Potter of course is a demanding thing to do particularly if one is being creative and trying new things. There are plenty of frustrations when the product isn't up to expectations - it may fail at the first hurdle and crack in half as it dries!

With this practical craft it encourages risk takers and whingers quickly stop coming.

So a new group is being set up in a community centre without the dreaded grants, so people have to pay small amounts for themselves which will ensure that the group continues. Having got one group going it is hoped to form a second and a third in different areas of Ulverston.

Having got doers together, I'm hoping that these people will have views that they want carried out for their areas and one or two will want to represent the group at local government level as independent thinking people. They will gradually learn which officials to contact to get things done and reap the reward of things actually happening.

It's a long term strategy and it will be fun to see what happens. There are other groups of doers amongst us of course - the largest probably are the gardeners with their allotments.

A great scare crow!

So far they are managed by the council but they could claim more ownership of their work and set up independent self help groups. Something I'm just getting to find out about.

So it is to be "doers of Ulverston work together" but not necessarily 'unite' as that implies that they will all want the same thing.

That was a long post - how did you cope.

With my main contact with people through doers, you can perhaps understand my lack of enthusiasm for people who just talk especially in the early hours on their computers. As I've said before I write this for my own benefit - it helps me sort my thinking out and sometimes spot where I'm going wrong!

I sometimes make contact with another doer too!

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

I read with interest you thoughts on the local police. You may be interested to know of my experience. Coming home from Saturday afternoon shopping trip to Ulverston, driving along remote country lane, catch up with slow moving vehicle in front. Vehicle in front stops and passenger passes a rifle with telescopic sites to driver, driver aims rifle out of vehicle window, driver realises another vehicle (me) is behind and speeds off. Recognised driver, took registration and reported immeadietly by mobile phone to police. TWO WEEKS later PC Plod knocks on my door to take a statement, willingly gave statement, I named the driver, described vehicle, gave reg number and signed statement. Plod says that unless I am prepared to go to court and give evidence, then there is nothing they can do. No says I , I'm not going to court because I know the reputation of this ulverston crim and I do not want to bring troubles to my family. Plod turns hostile and tells me that they can make me go to court and testify. I turn defensise and say you can't make me do anything! Plod storms out of my house having spat his dummy big time.
I have seen the crim in the same area, same vehicle etc etc many times since. Have I contacted the police again - have I hell.

Geoff Dellow said...

Great posting.

Thanks.

My initial reaction is that the police may get very frustrated themselves with not being able to bring forward prosecutions.

They can only do this with having people that will stand up in court.

However I can sympathise with your position. Very few of us want to take the risk of the repercussions in a close-knit society.

But then can the police act without us. Shouldn't they be seen as neutral and there only to help the justice system to work.

For this to happen in our system we need first hand witnesses. Without these what is the alternative? :-

A police state where the police make the decisions for us and bring about their interpretation of the law?

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your reply Geoff. However I am rather disappointed with your sit on the fence sentiment on this subject.

What would you have done:-

1) Put your family at risk?
2) Refuse to testify in court?

Straight answers only my friend - indicate 1 or 2 , no political waffle!

Geoff Dellow said...

We discussed this issue in philosophy a few months back.

Do you put your family at risk when you uphold your views.

We considered the case of the resistant fighter in France in the last war who went out and sabotaged the Germans.

If a man, he was putting his whole family at risk of being shot.

I came to the personal view that I would adopt the same attitude and have discussed it with my partner. She is definitely uncomfortable with my position but accepts me as the person that I am.

I will definitely put myself at risk by standing out for what I believe. I have done this several times and been close to being thumped for coming out with my views.

The police aren't happy with my attitude and believe that I shouldn't take risks. However it is more important to my feelings about myself that I take a stand even if this is dangerous and my life is shorter by consequence.

My quality of life is more important to me than it's length.

I believe that having thought this out helps me function better and be 'more at peace with myself'.

Difficult decision.

So the police know that if I can catch a motorist using a mobile phone in the street, I will film them if I can, report them, and attend court to be a first hand witness.

So yes I will, reluctantly, put my life at risk for what I believe and as a consequence put the lives of those that can be threatened also at risk.

If my life is shorter - so be it.

Having thought this through beforehand means that I will, I hope, take action instinctively and quickly, should the time come.

However it's all very well talking in the abstract and different when acting in practice.

We shall see. . .

Anonymous said...

You are obviously a brave man and I sincerely hope that you are never subject to physical or verbal abuse.

For my part, I would never put my wife and family in a position where they could potentially be subject to either.

Geoff Dellow said...

In my opinion there are no 'right ' answers. Just the one that we're comfortable with in the long term.

Geoff Dellow said...

Email just received from Sgt Johnston:

‘Geoff,

In response to your email request for a comment relating to the comments made by the Anonymous contributor to your Blog. I have to say that your response is an accurate summery of how the Criminal Justice System works. We cannot deal with a suspect without evidence that can ultimately be tested by a Court. In an interview situation with a suspect who denies what is being put to them what do we then say? ‘You were seen by Mr. Anonymous so you must have done it and your going to Court’ it just doesn’t work. As you allude to; that can never be allowed to happen. In Society we have to work together to make it work or it all falls apart. The Police can not do it alone, we never have and we never will. If your Anonymous contributor wishes to discus this issue with me they need to stop hiding and step into reality. I can be contacted at Ulverston Police Station or by ringing 0845 33 00 247 and ask for Sgt. Rupert Johnston.

Geoff, I am aware of the growing popularity of your blog but have no desire to comment further on this as I have no personal knowledge of the incident and I do not wish to participate in an online debate.’