|Posted on Tuesday, 19 December, 2006 - 10:20 am: |
The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority is currently consulting with residents, businesses and organisations on its Draft Action Plan. The Draft Action Plan outlines proposals to make London a safer city by further improving services in 2007/08.
We would like to invite you to take part in this important consultation.
The proposals will affect all who live, work and visit the capital in 2007/08 (and beyond) and cover issues such as sustainability, response times, risk management and prevention.
The consultation should only take 10 minutes or so to complete, and the views of the public, businesses and organisations are vital in ensuring the plan meets the needs of all who live or work in London.
The consultation runs until 17th February 2007 and is available online at www.citizenspace.co.uk/lfepa
|Posted on Thursday, 21 December, 2006 - 10:47 am: |
I have to confess that whilst I started to complete this consultation I stopped half way through, as I couldn't see the value in submitting a response.
Because of the way the consultation is written, you are requested to respond to individual issues in isolation of eack other. I felt that the questions were almost no brainers: Would anyone honestly not strongly support the promotion of fire safety within the community, for the organisation to be more environmentally friendly, or for it to work closely with key agencies to cut the number of RTA's (I would be interested to hear from people that won't support these issues).
To be anything but a rubber stamping exercise - though maybe this is all it is meant to be - had we been given either/or options to consider, or facts explained (is attending a situation within 5 minutes 65% of the time good? I don't know)
That being said, thank you for posting the link, because as a rule I believe the completion of such consultations/survey is important (Recent ELL survey is a prime example)
|Posted on Thursday, 21 December, 2006 - 02:12 pm: |
I felt the same way - I did complete it so that I could comment that the questions were so leading that I had no basis on which to form an opinion. Likewise I am all for public consultation but the main purpose of this seemed to be going through the motions to state that the public had been consulted.