Cause & effect : A note on e-letters (info from inside)

[gonefishing]

As recent developments have caused some controversy, many groups seem to be offering e-letters as a form of protest and a tool for indication of public feeling.

 

Being involved in IT, I was curious how these identical emails would be handled by the ministries considering the apparent ease of which they could be filtered and replied to, so I asked a ministry friend of mine how correspondence like this is handled...it was as i feared.

 

Emails and written letters are handled under the same rules (a good thing), where the ministry is expected to reply within a certain time limit. However, because of the huge amount of correspondance a ministry receives, there are "methods" to reduce the workload and work as efficiently as possible. And this is what i was unofficially told...

 

1) identical emails will likely receive identical automated replies. Because of this "automated" situation the amount of emails received is also unlikely to be raised further than the office handling them and so the magnitude of the amount of emails is unlikely to ever be passed onto anyone of interest to the cause.

Even if the system isn't automated, identical emails receive identical replies as its more efficient for the office to reply this way.

The amount of identical emails received will therefore make little or no difference.

Its also worth noting that automated replies won't be sent by a person, however personalise replies will and they will have the email address of the person replying, not just a machines email address.

 

2) if a reply to a personalised response is received and the sender then replies almost immediately with another question opening dialogue, the reply sent back is likely to be delayed in order to disuade an email discussion, to avoid email getting priority over another.

So email may be faster in theory, but practice may make that redundant.

 

3) Correspondance from people believed to be nuttcases or perceived as being abusive is ignored.

 

However, all is not lost... i did get some handy hints how to make correspondance more effective.

 

1) if you wish to make email more effective, but wish to use an e-letter, make it just a basis and add a paragraph yourself to make it different. If you ask a question you should get an answer. If you ask a question that is different from the rest, it means someone has to go off and research that reply, and the reply will come from a person, therefore you will have that person's email address for future correspondance and referall.

 

2) correspondance methods are reflected in the reply, so if you send an email it will be replied to in an email. The efficiency of you clattering out a quick edit to an e-letter will be reflected by their efficiency in replying. Again, if there is no load at the ministry, its unlikely anyone will even be notfified of the traffic. So if you want someone to take time to write a letter, then a posted letter is the way forward.

 

3) Ask a question. If you just pass on your views, there is less work if any for a ministry to do. Just informing them of your views or opinion may not even stimulate a response. A question has to be answered in some manner.

 

If you start creating more work for a ministry someone may start taking more notice. From the conversation I had, its my personal view that e-letters will have little to no impact as compared to a campaign using personal mailed and targetted questions.

 

Hope this helps.

[Guest jay_con]

Thats why we all got the same reply from eliott morley with our greenpeace emails. The reply was also immediate which suggests no human involvment.

[Leon Roskilly]

Cheers Gonefishing,

 

I've passed this info onto the SACN membership

 

There really is no substitute for a letter composed and written by a constituent to their own Member of Parliament or MEP.

 

They often simply get passed onto the Minister, and dealt with by some lackey, but occassionally the MP does take a much greater interest if arguments are well presented and well made, and they refused to be fobbed off.

 

Letters from anglers to their MPs have in the past led to parliamentary debates, where the minister has had to get his department to research the subject and prepare a briefing because he/she has to atend that debate.

 

Simply having to prepare the briefing means that department heads have had to research the isssues raised, and that all goes towards creating an environment where awareness of anglers' issues is raised within the department.

 

All because one angler has taken the time to sit down and write a letter!

 

(If anyone does get a bite, they should pass on details to the SACN, NFSA, BASS etc., who can then start to help fill in the gaps when a wagon starts to roll!)

 

Tight Lines - leon

[GowerRay]

Questions and answers? A bit vague in my memory but I remember reading quite a few years ago when I was involved in a personal crusade against the Education system about 'Tabling questions via an MP in Parliament'. The article stated that the historic protocol followed in Parliament demanded that questions be set out in the time honoured manner. That is a layout and wording as stipulated in the Parliamentary rulings. Any other form of question was deemed unacceptable and therefore filed under B for bin.

I'm pretty sure my memory serves me more or less correctly but I'd like to know if anyone knows the full details, be I right or wrong. :confused:

[Leon Roskilly]

GowerRay:

Questions and answers? A bit vague in my memory but I remember reading quite a few years ago when I was involved in a personal crusade against the Education system about 'Tabling questions via an MP in Parliament'. The article stated that the historic protocol followed in Parliament demanded that questions be set out in the time honoured manner. That is a layout and wording as stipulated in the Parliamentary rulings. Any other form of question was deemed unacceptable and therefore filed under B for bin.

    I'm pretty sure my memory serves me more or less correctly but I'd like to know if anyone knows the full details, be I right or wrong.    :confused:  

See http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/p01.pdf

 

Tight Lines - leon

[Lid]

I still haven't received a reply to my Greenpeace e-letter. However I changed the text a bit, especially near the start. Maybe I'll get a reply later.

[Anglersvoice]

Leon, thanks for sending that to us at AnglersVoice, we rely on e-mail to share information and to make some amount of protests to Government Ministers/agencies etc.

 

I can confirm that despite DOZENS of e-mails to the Irish Minister for Tourism, not one email back from him. Despite getting the STOP website some extra angling publicity, we haven't achieved much.

 

In the case of the Irish Drift Nets, we are now collecting Irish B&B e-mail addresses and Holiday Companies advertising Fishing in Ireland. We want to write to them telling them about their Ministers' Apathy to the fall in Angling Tourism due to dwindling migratory fish runs.

 

Kev (AnglersVoice)

[Leon Roskilly]

Hi Kev,

 

And welcome to Anglersnet

 

You might like to contact Roger Baker, who is an SACN Executive Group member and editor of Irish Angler.

 

That's when he's not looking after his wonerful angling lodge and guiding service at

 

http://www.cloghvoola.com/

 

Tight Lines - leon

 

[ 04. January 2005, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: Leon Roskilly ]