National "Make No Assumptions About People Who Drop Litter" Week

I was in central London on Saturday and a woman walking along in front of me dropped the cellophane wrapping of her cigarette pack to the pavement.  It’s not an unusual act but it revolted and incensed me.  I knew exactly what I should do, which was to pick it up and give it to her, innocently suggesting that the piece of rubbish belonged to her and she must want it back.

But I didn’t, and then the moment passed and I thought about why I hadn’t.  She was a well dressed woman, quite posh looking, so I wasn’t worried about being punched in the face; perhaps I was a little afraid of getting into a row, though the right was on my side.  It was convention that stopped me, and knowing that she’d think I was being sarcastic and rude if I suggested the scrap of sellophane belonged to her. 

Thinking about this deeper, I’m not sure this is right.  If I drop things, even things I don’t need, I make quite a lot of effort to pick them up – even in the road, so it doesn’t follow that other people who drop things do it intentionally.  So I wondered, if everyone made the assumption that sweet wrappings, cigarette butts, sandwich packets, crisps and cans, all that junk that you see smudging around the streets, had been dropped by mistake, perhaps that would help.

So this is what I propose: 

1   if people drop things, assume they have done it by mistake;

2   if you notice someone doing something by mistake, it’s courteous to point it out, pick it up for them, and give it back, non-judgementally, not in a patronising way, but just being helpful;

3   if this was the norm, and everyone did it, the few people that chuck stuff down deliberately would start to feel embarrassed;

4   if everyone was offering litter back to droppers, we wouldn’t be scared or embarrassed.

I think we should try this.  For one week to start with, perhaps at the end of March, and then we could try another week of it, so by the time the Olympics arrive, we’d have had loads of practice.   Does anyone want to join me?

      If you are wondering why this is on the mediation blog it's because making no assumptions, and not judging people, and not confronting them with what they've done wrong, is the bread and butter of conflict resolution, and the sooner the government start understanding that rather than carrying on in the old style - criticism, judgement, penalty and all that, offering mediation as a bolt-on - nothing will change - at least nothing will change for the better. 

Definition of Mediation

This is the nicest definition I've come across, nicked from the Australian Mediation Association's website:

Mediation is a process in which an impartial third party - a mediator –facilitates the resolution of a dispute by promoting uncoerced agreement by the parties to the dispute. A mediator facilitates communication, promotes understanding, assists the parties to identify their needs and interests, and uses creative problem solving techniques to enable the parties to reach their own agreement.

Mediations and How to Get Them

Up until a short time ago, litigants in the county court who either decided or were advised to try mediation, were directed to the National Mediation Helpline which in turn directed the case to a mediation provider.

The system has changed now, and a website points potential mediatees to a list of providers from which they pick one, probably the one at the top.  Individual mediators on these providers' panels, are also invited to sit in a spare corner of the court all day, ready to talk to litigants who drift their way, or more proactively to invite conversations with unwary individuals who might be at court for a variety of matters, some suitable for mediation, some possibly not.

I spent a day as the duty mediator a few weeks ago, at the London's Civil Justice Centre in Regent’s Park.  The good thing about this system is that mediation is manifestly being brought under the justice system’s umbrella.  The court staff were well informed and enthusiastic.  It is not regarded as a fluffy add on, but as something all litigants should at least consider.  The down side of the arrangement, is that many people turning up at the court are arriving for their trials, which in most cases is too late to consider mediation, or are coming to issue proceedings, which is often too early.  It is also expecting a lot from the mediators that we sit in the court from 9.30 to 5, unpaid, and with no guarantee of getting work from it.  Many of the people I encouraged to consider mediation, qualified for the free small claim mediation in any case.  

There are many things about the way the mediation profession is monitored, scrutinised, regulated and governed, that seem to me to be less than perfect at the moment, and I am hopeful that this unfair and cumbersome system for distributing work will be fine tuned one day, along with the other wrinkles.  It is difficult for newly qualified mediators to break in and get experience, and it is difficult for more experienced mediators to find work except through joining overcrowded panels.  

However, cumbersome as the present system is, there is one invaluable by-product which is that individuals, people in conflict, who up till now have had no real options put before them other than the expensive lottery of litigation, can now have a one to one conversation with a professional who can explain an effective and economical alternative.  At this stage in the game, these conversations are possibly the most useful driver to changing the mind set from litigation to mediation.