PIP

Prejudicial prevarication is a process of inflicting harm on the advancement of the interests of someone or a group through an intentional failure to respond to critical questions raised by them. Such questions are often those around which a person can establish the foundation of his or her argument, that is, to provide evidence that what they say is true (factual). As a result the person cannot achieve something in line with their freely formed preferences while those resisting the realization of such preferences, do so, not through the logic of argument but through an intentional act of corruption of the content of dialogue. This corruption of information means that many questions remain unanswered and therefore the logical cycle of an argument or explanation is not completed and therefore remains ineffective. Invariably this is achieved not be ignoring questions but rather by displacing questions by answering another question or by deploying tactics which consist of faulty reasoning, but which appear to the uninitiated to be appropriate answers. Indeed, there are well over 80 well-established techniques¹ to parry direct questions with what appear to be logical answers when in fact they are designed to dispel the question. Politicians are often reasonably skilled at this sort of thing and being experts at saying in any particular circumstance not what they believe but what the feel is the appropriate response at the time and circumstance under which a question is posed. To most this is an example of dishonesty whereas to the politician it is a survival technique, at all times, defending the image of their party and thereby guaranteeing continued support.

When we are dealing with a dialogue governed by a procedural framework such as statutory planning, the field for prejudicial prevarication is fertile and it can extend beyond the simple issue of not answering questions but can involve a series of technical and procedural "tricks" so as to reduce the visibility of what proposers are in fact aiming to do and the degree to which those deciding on a proposal are working in liaison with the proponent, or otherwise. Under such circumstances the proactive corruption of information can be a sign that there are other forms of corruption at work. However, rather than get hung up on this possibility it is more productive to lay bare the corruption in information as a first step.

The motivation on the part of those questioned not to answer can of course be related to the fact that they do not understand the questions. However, in the context of proceedings concerning planning proposals and more particularly related to expression of concerns and arguments for not accepting a proposal, the committee members are usually fully aware of the implications of questions. This is particularly true of planning officials (civil servants) who have more experience in overseeing many cases in their professional careers. Therefore communication of a question in a clear manner is often not the issue. This means that planning officer reports, upon which planning committees rely, need to come under a particularly close scrutiny.

Statutory regulations are an alien concept to English Law because of their prescriptive nature and therefore "following the rules" often dominates the logic of planning officers and planning committees. However, the most blatant unveiling of prejudicial prevarication can occur in the areas where there is discretion on the part of the decision-makers, the planning committee. The issue is that knowledge of the implications of a question in affecting the interests of those questioned can lead to prevarication which then prejudices the interest of those questioning. The interests of the planning committee do not have to relate in general to a specific proposal but rather to a broader political agenda. For example have some councillors who live in a relatively uncrowded part of the Island decided that all new construction should occur in another part of the Island with the attendant parking issues? Is there a push to secure for some segments of the Island better housing stock values by upholding amenity while allowing the relative value of other housing stocks to fall as a direct result of losses in amenity caused by poor planning decisions?

These are questions that will be answered - without prevarication!