(13-05-2011 07:03 )beller Wrote: [ -> ] (12-05-2011 19:55 )SYBORG666 Wrote: [ -> ]The reality is, some of us on here have or are trying to get our point a cross to Ofcom but they won't listen to anything that goes against them.
The only way they will pay attention is if everyone on this forum got involved.
Yes - actually lobbying your MP is quite useful. If you can provide a bit of evidence of Ofcom's apparent lack of transparency etc (not difficult), he/she will write on your behalf to Ed Richards (Head of Ofcom). He then gets a minion to reply in detail (pretty insulting to the sitting MP).
So lots of MPs writing to ask him to explain himself annoys Ofcom who have to provide the justifications, and the MPs get annoyed with Ofcom when they get a letter back from only a minion.
Most organisations get a "senior" exec about 2 levels below the top to reply to MPs, regarding them as senior but not top level managers in the machinery of running the country. After all there are 650 of them. If it is a consituency matter this applies even if the MP is a Minister, though a bit more double checking takes place. Most replies are actually researched and drafted by junior staff closer to the actual casework, but get scrutinised for due defference, acceptability of the message and conformity to unofficial policies (dont budge on allowing porn).
Many MPs have a sausage factory approach to most consituents complaints, fire off a query to the relevant public body and dont really care about the reply. Honour has been satisfied by raising the matter and they stand a chance of getting a vote.
Most replies fall into two categories:
"We have checked and correct procedures were followed"
or "Thank you for raising this, on this occasion there was an isolated error by a junior member of staff. The error has been corrected."
Neither cases senior management to loose sleep.
Public sector organisations worry when a complaint raises a serious matter, for example well established practices that have no basis in law, people exceeding their authority or bias. These also tend to excite MPs because MPs can get good publicity out of exposing a juicy scandal, that improves their reputation,their reelection chances and their promotion prospects.
Mostly MPs only get one or two letters about any particular subject. If they receive 5 or 6 they start thinking hundreds of constituents are thinking the same. Above that they really worry.
Many MPs also have their own pet likes and dislikes. Europe, unions, taxes, services, toffs, crime...
To get the best response from Ofcom a complaint should clearly indicate that they are acting illegally or inconsistently. And it should also be short and too the point, not 50 pages of closely worded legal argument, case studies and examples.
If many MPs write in with similar concerns Ofcom will take notice. But if they are all the same it will be dismissed as a campaign.
If individual MPs receive a steady stream of complaints they will start to take notice and dig deeper.
Bear in mind that MPs will only reply to constituents with addresses in their constituency. An email that preserves anonymity will not get a response. Minister only respond to matters forwarded by MPs - writing direct will not get a response unless there is a very clear cut scandal.
So find out what excites your MP. Are they pro cuts, anti waste? Do they hate civil servants? Are they pro free speech? Are they against abuse of power? Raise query that will interest them. Try to get different people to contact them. Dont innundate them with repeats, dont appear obsessive, but find different reasons to complain a few times a year.
Also dont forget that as well as Ofcom there is the Culture Media and Sport Select Committee (
http://www.parliament.uk/cmscom). This represents the bulk of backbench MPs and helps hold Ministers to account, but they do tend to focus their time and effort on specific topics.
