I've been met with that kind of stone walling before too, you know what eventually worked to actually turn the position of a local councilwoman? Going to her office and demand to speak with her, then sitting down, listening and having a conversation with her. Turns out that most of the emails "she" wrote to me was written by an assistant "to save her time" and she weren't aware of the points I was trying to bring up. Granted, this was like one and half decade ago, but if I was met with something similar today I'd try the same thing.

People tend to be a lot more reasonable in person, and also if you listen to them first.

Councillors have a totally different role though and aren't involved in creating legislation

Yeah, also they could be male. Don't take it so literal, the point I'm making is about going and physically meeting people, not about what title/label those people have.

Yeah, fair enough, just didn't want people to waste their time with the councillors regarding national legislation

There are lots of replies stating that their MP gave them a cookie cutter response, so it is a waste of time.

I can tell you that isn't entirely true. When they get a lot of messages about the same thing, or better still you meet them in person, they may keep giving you the 'party line response', but they will also be feeding back that there is discontent to the whips.

This. It's not a waste of time. I know it's frustrating. You have to set your expectations. The best you can do is write as eloquently and succinctly as possible to get your point across and make it clear what you're advocating for. Better still, encourage others to write / email / call with that same clarity.

What you are telling me in effect is that all the exchanges I have are ultimately disingenuous with the MP. It also tells me that the MP represents the party and not me (as they are acting as nothing more than a glorified public relations officer).

This undermines the entire point of the process and only further degrades public trust.

Here on the other side of the pond, writing our so-called Representatives to complain, produces the same kind of result. If your rep has a (D) by his or her name, you'll get back one form-letter, and if your rep has a (R) by his or her name, you'll get back the other form-letter. There's no attempt to address the points you might bring up. You write--and they respond back with their pre-baked talking points.

A politician is like ROM: Once it's written, that's it, you have to swap it out with a different ROM if you want even one of its lines of programming changed.

What you describe is the representative democratic system. Misunderstanding is the source of any distrust. It is frustrating to write to an MP only to be given boilerplate in return. But setting your expectations and continuing to advocate for your point of views is the only way to participate. One letter won't change anything, and how could it? There are other people writing opposing points of view. It's taken in the aggregate.

Same, my MP is clueless. They won’t listen to the experts. This is what he said:

The UK has a strong tradition of safeguarding privacy while ensuring that appropriate action can be taken against criminals, such as child sexual abusers and terrorists. I firmly believe that privacy and security are not mutually exclusive—we can and must have both. The Investigatory Powers Act governs how and when data can be requested by law enforcement and other relevant agencies. It includes robust safeguards and independent oversight to protect privacy, ensuring that data is accessed only in exceptional cases and only when necessary and proportionate. The suggestion that cybersecurity and access to data by law enforcement are at odds is false. It is possible for online platforms to have strong cybersecurity measures whilst also ensuring that criminal activities can be detected.

The response is the same boilerplate responses I used to get when I used to write to my MP. This is why I just gave up emailing my MP. You are essentially pleading with someone to reverse their previous position when they have no incentive do to so.

All of which is arguably true, but misses the point that uploading your age verification documents to every social media site you might want to look at is very likely to result in them getting hacked and leaked.

Working with startups, I've signed up for 100s of sites. My password manager lists 550. Those signups are currently low-risk: just my email (already widely public) and a random password. But it would put a big chill on my work if I had to upload government age verification docs to each one.

Same. I have protested over email about the Online Safety Act (amongst other things). I get a generic reply after 6-8 weeks with the same talking points.

Legislation like this does not make children safer, it makes everyone else less safe.