Working in partnership with Government can present its challenges. While the Burmese regime may be an extreme case, the recent crisis was an example of the difficult path charities and NGO's have to tread in the course of their work. Do you criticise wrongdoing or keep quiet in the hope of achieving your aims and objectives by stealth?

Closer to home depending on the Government, local authorities or other public bodies for funding presents its own dilemmas.

So let's imagine your charity works in an area that is a high priority on the Government's agenda. In terms of service delivery your organisation is the bees knees and you've therefore been receiving substantial public funding in recognition of your great work.

Out of the blue, new policies are announced and your organisation thinks the Government has got it seriously wrong. The media are on to it and something of a furore is building. You are being asked to comment.

This presents something of a dilemma - do you keep shtumm and exclude yourself from an important debate on issues at the heart of your work or risk biting the hand that feeds you with stinging criticism of policy?

So how prepared is your charity to handle such sensitive requests from the media? How will you negotiate a line between your right to be critical of policy without endangering your funding? As a current affairs TV producer, I've often encountered reluctance on the part of charities and other organisations to criticise or even comment on the Government, local authority or other public body on which they are dependant for funding.

It doesn't have to be this way.

This is the one instance when more measured tones are appropriate. If you are a big enough key player, the media will be interested in your comments anyway, without you having to resort to the heightened language normally required to get that juicy quote in the papers or on the TV.

With the careful use of language, there should be no reason why you cannot enter public debate and challenge your Government or local authority. Focussing on your clients needs and relating them to case histories rather than a full frontal attack on the relevant Secretary of State and his/her Department's proposals is one way of showing how the policy direction may be wrong.

And the language you use may be the key. A clear truthful message about the effect on service delivery to your clients should not endanger your relationship with your funder.

Just sometimes, the situation merits you putting your head above the parapet in this way rather than ducking the issue.

David O'Keeffe is Director of the media training company Dreamcatcher Media. Tel: 0208 241 3746