|
thanks for the reply paul
i think i see where the differences in our views lie.
first of all, i think it's fair to say that there is a huge amount of good will towards rightsnet from its users. i share tony's view that open debate could lead to more positives. this is simply from the premise that a collective dynamic can throw up ideas that might not have arisen otherwise.
you say to tony that you don't see how open debate can overcome the simple fact that unless some sustainable income generation takes place the site will cease to exist.
paul, open discussion could very well question that premise. i would say it is not an established fact. it's a contextual condition, and a potentially challengeable view. hence a need for information as part of a meaningful consultation process.
open discussion may conclude that there is a need for grant, in addition to contract funding, for instance. i would argue that the very valuable (to socially excluded people who the government wants to include - does somebody think this is all about our own jobs?) development work carried out on rightsnet is partly educational and partly creative in nature and the latter particularly is not conducive to the straightjacket of contracts. this requires a leap of faith on the part of those, whose job it is to try to nail things down in contract terms, but who are nevertheless perfectly capable of understanding how creative processes work in the area of law, when they are provided with clear and convincing explanations, and respect those involved in formulating them, and most likely from their own understanding as human beings.
the lord chancellor has a sum at his disposal for access to justice, and i don't know how it's being spent, do you? it's quite a modest sum, but i know that the relatively small amount given to 9 law centres in grants is no longer given and the grants were abolished 2 years ago. we used to get around #89, 000 (sorry, my pound sign doesn't work) which was nearly half of our income, and it's since been converted to contract. most of the other grant-funded law centres got smaller percentages of their income, just to give you an idea. most receive LA funding - we do not. this is public money were talking about, and i see nothing wrong with talking about it publicly, and think it right people should have an idea of the sums the government is prepared to spend on access to justice.
my view is that there is a need for for public law work to receive central government funding without strings that restict it's independence. proper spending and accountability is right, but control through funding isn't, imo.
there is a need for development of human rights law, which could be more specifically identified, but has been generally remarked upon in many quarters recently. (not had the impact expected??). i'm talking of a much more mundane level than the cases that reach the higher courts. this seems to me to be a natural direction for rightsnet to go in. the government must have a keen interest in this (human rights at grass roots level) it cannot want to be losing ministers because of the actions of officials, and i think the indications are very strong that in IND and the DWP at least, some officials are out of control and the culture is human rights (and law) ignorant. and with its commitment to improving public services, i would have thought the 'mutual interest' connections could be made between the problems government has in this area, and the contribution rightsnet users can make in this area, and the importance of rightsnet to them. i daresay many here would vouch for that if there is any doubt.
alternatively, if this is resistable, we might wish to ask whether the LSC has considered asking for a levy from some of the main authorities whose injustices require funded legal help work, and what use it makes of the statistics we provide. i don't know, but i'd be interested to find out.
you say to me that " the fact remains that sufficient funding isn't coming through, hence the need to consider a move to subscriptions."
no argument with the first part of your sentence, but your conclusion is fallacious logically. no offence. it may be a valid conclusion if you are in possession of the full facts, but we aren't, and may wish to question it. this supports the case for open discussion.
even if you are in full possession of the facts, your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow either. service users may wish to question the reason the funding isn't coming through, rather than move straight to the subscription conclusion. some may come from a campaigning background, for example. scary? take heart -yesterday, the Skye bridge was liberated from toll charges through the campaigning actions of its users. some may advocate a legal challenge. some may have utilisable information. some may have creative ideas. some effective networking may emerge which helps the situation. i can only speak hypothetically, at this point, and of course, cannot predict any outcome. the fact is, we are affected, and the principle that people have a say over things that affect them is a good one, in my book.
my worry about moving to subscriptions is that it may change the nature of the site detrimentally. you are wrong to assume that i am focused only on the discussion forums. the news and reports, and the case law access are invaluable resources. i will tell my manager that he must pay to subscribe, and i expect he will do so until such time that the increasing pressure on our budget sends him back to tell me otherwise. we're LSC contract funded, so that will be the source of our subscription payments. more LSC funding for rightsnet, as a national resource, is actually benefitting every contracted supplier of welfare rights, so if you think of a sum and divide it by the number of contracted suppliers, the LSC could see how much they were supporting WR work per supplier nationally, if they granted that sum. if it comes out of a regional budget, they may have an argument etc etc to get more money and feel pleased at how much benefit at little cost per head is being achieved. added to the negative argument of kafkaesque accounting to do otherwise. users here could illuminate the benefits they derive from rightsnet, possibly better in a group forum than they could in isolation.
but there may be organisations already under so much pressure financially that they cannot afford additional costs, however judiciously fair they are set. a move to subscsriptions might easily result in rightsnet contracting when most of us like to see it expanding.
the value of rightsnet in educational and training terms, i'm sure, can be made, and the hour is too late and i'm too tired to was lyrical at this point. effective WR work, in a receptive climate, also produces benefits in educationalor training terms to our 'opponents'- something which is easily overlooked...
but on the question of case law, and rightsnet's esteemable digest of decisions, i feel strongly that rightsnet should be properly funded to provide this excellent service free to all users, on public interest grounds. it is currently done by rightsnet on a not-for-profit basis, and there is a real need for it which would otherwise eventually be met on a commercial basis, and would again, close up rather than open up, access to justice. freedom of information is only as good as access to it. a publicly funded investment for public benefit -the justification arguments can be made easily. what are the arguments against it?
i didn't think for a moment that anyone at rightsnet or LASA thought of making lots of money by charging. you have doubtless lived with the reality of the funding problems for quite a while and gone over it and over it. it came as a shock to me, and i expect, to many others. my first thought was Rightsnet in trouble? we must do something. i'm something of an old collectivist. i then became concerned about the silence. i then became concerned that open discussion was being constrained. i feel the loss of rightsnet as a threat to my work. so i asked. publicly. i think openness is the best policy.
criticism can be constructive. bogus consultation never is. i learned both those lessons when i used to be a local TU and whitley rep in the civil service - pre and post executive agencies.
as for dissent and dispute - i consider myself free to do both, and if i can't, then i'm a slave.
jj
|
